RSS

Tag Archives: dialogue

The Heart and Hope of Democracy

Let’s begin this meditation on the heart and hope of democracy with you identifying yourself with either the Blue or Red sphere in the diagram above. Then let’s pretend that all of your life you’ve been training to be the best Blue or Red you can be. From an early age your tribe was actively shaping and colorizing you, giving you careful instructions, applying timely discipline, and downloading all the necessary codes that would eventually get you to the point where, today, you don’t regard Blue or Red as one option among two (or many) but as who you are.

Beyond that, Blue or Red is also how you see the world around you. The meaning of things and the issues that grab your attention hold a strong correspondence to the perceptual filter of your identity. Blue or Red concerns just feel more important to you, and you make friends more easily with other Blues or Reds. Having the same values and beliefs about the world helps your conversations stay in tracks that are familiar and predictable.

If you are Blue, then those Reds are way off base. If you’re Red, then those Blues have no clue what’s going on.

Being sure of your identity as Blue or Red, you are vigilant to keep reddish or bluish tendencies in check. In fact, quite often it’s easier to determine where you stand on something by checking out the other color and then taking the opposite position. If your tribe has done its job and you remain strong in your convictions, the separation between you might as well be another feature of reality itself. You are Blue or you are Red, and they are way over there, outsiders to the one and true way of being in the world.

Democracy will always be challenged by the duality of opposites.

Blues and Reds might relish the fantasy of living out their days in a land exclusively Blue or Red, where everyone believes and behaves the same way – the right way, their way. But such a fantasy amounts to nothing more than what Joseph Campbell called a “utopiate”: a utopia or “no place” in the imagined future that sedates the mind like opium and keeps consciousness, now in the words of Pink Floyd, “comfortably numb.”

As long as Blues and Reds see color as essential to the nature of what and who they are, ideology will continue to be mistaken for reality.

Indeed, living in a fantasy is not far from a true description of what’s going on for you as a Blue or Red. A better word perhaps might be trance, seeing as how your identity, beliefs, values and way of life were “put on you” starting at a very early age, like someone put under a spell by a hypnotist. We could justifiably call this entranced state “separation consciousness,” since its principal effect is in convincing you that you and that Red or Blue over there are entirely separate and have absolutely nothing in common.

Now, I’m not suggesting that who you are and what you believe are meaningless, for clearly they mean everything to you.

However, if we pause to consider how the meaning of anything is not found in the thing itself – Where exactly is the meaning of a flower or a star? – but is rather put on it by our mind, usually in agreement with other minds, then the notion of meaning as a spell and belief as a kind of trance might start to make more sense.

As long as Blues honor and respect only other Blues and bluish values, and as long as Reds honor and respect only other Reds and reddish values, democracy doesn’t stand a chance.

We need to arrive at a place – which is no utopia but actually a step closer to reality – where Blues and Reds can listen to each other, ask questions that seek understanding, confirm this understanding by paraphrasing it back to the owner, and then join the work of constructing a world where they can coexist in peace, but even more where they can thrive in mutual honor and respect.

According to the dictionary, being worthy of honor and respect is the definition of ‘dignity’. The heart of a healthy and vibrant democracy lies in the dignity individuals recognize in each other. If we ask where this worth resides or attaches itself, it can’t be with those socially conditioned, culturally relative, autobiographical factors that define your identity as a Blue or Red.

When we assign dignity to anything at this more superficial level, we end up amplifying things that separate individuals rather than connect them.

For a healthy democracy, dignity must be acknowledged as attaching to human nature itself. Underneath all of that overlay of personal identity and far below the trance-state where Blues and Reds contend for supremacy, you are a living, sentient, and self-conscious human being. Every human being is worthy of honor and respect, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ideology, socioeconomic status, and even moral character.

If you are a human being that happens to be Blue or Red, your humanity makes you equal with everyone else. That Red or Blue over there is not your enemy but your potential partner in dialogue, referring to that disciplined process described earlier where we listen to each other, ask questions to gain a better understanding, confirm our understanding by paraphrasing each other’s perspective, and then engage in the work of constructing a world where we can live and flourish together.

When we can do this, when Blues and Reds can become partners in a process rather than enemies across an ideological divide, the trance of separation consciousness will drop from our minds like a veil. This revelation is what is meant by “awakening,” as your spiritual intelligence sees through the illusion of separateness (and of identity as well) and becomes aware of, or wakes up to, the unity of all things.

As the hope of democracy, genuine community is characterized by unity consciousness.

But community isn’t only about a change in awareness. If All is One, as unity consciousness bears witness, then there is no ‘outside’ and therefore no ‘outsiders’. This ethic of radical inclusion is the flowering manifestation of that deep realization in the heart of democracy, of each person’s dignity as a human being. At the very least it means there are absolute limits to what Blues and Reds can do to each other.

It also means that everyone, of whatever color, needs an invitation to the table if democracy is to work.

Finally, a spiritually awakened community that is radically inclusive will be thoroughly humane. In the English language our word ‘human’ was originally spelled with an ‘e’, but over time it bifurcated into ‘human’ which frequently means ‘only human’ (i.e., weak and fallible), and ‘humane’ which describes the tender virtues of grace, compassion, charity, forgiveness, and the like.

As a mark of genuine community, the commitment to a shared life that is thoroughly humane is absolutely critical to the health and longevity of democracy.

So if you are Blue or Red, remember that this not what you are most basically. The construction of your identity as Blue or Red doesn’t have to make every other color a threat and enemy. Hold your beliefs but don’t let them take your mind hostage. As best you can, try to see through the veil of who you are and of the world as you presently conceive it, to what is really real.

The heart of democracy is inside every Blue and Red, and its hope is a world that includes us all.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Big Picture

It’s true. I’m obsessed with trying to clarify the Big Picture, referring to the full view of our human situation not only inside our ethnic and national pocket cultures, but on the planet and across evolutionary time. Much of our difficulty at present, recurring through history as we tend to get snagged on the same things time and again, is a complication of losing the Big Picture and fixating instead on the troubles at hand.

It’s not that we should ignore these more local troubles and revel philosophically on only abstract and universal, but practically irrelevant things. What I mean by the Big Picture is a frame large enough to include what really needs our attention, fitted with a lens that helps us see the depths of detail and lengths of time required for making wiser, more creative and responsible choices.

In this post I introduce the idea of “culture blocks,” as distinct sets or paradigms of belief, value, and aim that drive the larger process of meaning-making and world-building unique to our species.

Culture can be usefully defined as the invented and almost completely imaginary construction of shared meaning that is downloaded into the consciousness of each new generation. Its construction is managed through a network of traditions, institutions, and ideologies that conspire to channel our animal instincts into outlets and expressions which not only help us get along, but also inspire the realization of our higher potential as a species.

The idea of culture blocks came to me recently as I’ve been reflecting on the strange culture wars breaking out among conservatives and liberals, fundamentalists and progressives, democrats and capitalists, between those who fantasize a utopian future and others awaiting the apocalypse. As one side looks with bafflement and outrage at the other, neither can understand how anyone in their right mind could subscribe to such ridiculous, delusional, and dangerous notions.

It’s not simply that they cannot agree on something they both see clearly, but that they are looking at entirely different things – or rather, that they are interpreting their situation through completely different paradigms. If your vantage point is located in a different culture block than the other guy, you will not only see things differently but your paradigm will be filtering for a very different reality.

Let’s get my model in front of us and try to make sense of it.

The first culture block is Morality and Religion. My arrows are indicators of time and influence, and the one coming to Morality from the left makes the point that it is probably the first element of culture to arise, with its principal line of influence coming from the past.

Morality is the set of behavioral codes that a people follow in order to get along and enjoy the benefits of social life. Each new generation doesn’t have to figure these codes out for itself, but instead receives them by instruction and example.

If morality carries the consensus on how we ought to behave, Religion anchors (or ‘links back’, religare) these social concerns to the deeper mystery of existence – not only of our provident support in the great web of life, but of that grounding mystery where awareness drops away from personal and temporal concerns into the timeless uplift of being-itself.

Religion carries our intuitions of the grounding mystery into metaphorical expression as myth. Its sacred stories serve as veils of meaning draping a mystery that cannot be explained but only revealed (literally unveiled) in each dramatic recital.

Deep within ourselves we hold a preconscious and ineffable intuition of essential oneness (communion), and religion’s first task is spinning the narrative thread that can guide us down and back again where this intuition can be applied to daily life.

Historically religion has served as the line of influence to a third element of culture, and the first in my second culture block of Politics and Economics. The arrangement of power and authority that preserves morality is given divine warrant and effectively removed from merely secular debate.

Chieftains, kings, priests, presidents, and “the people” themselves are honored as endowed by god with the right to rule. By tying political power and authority to god, who personifies the deep source and support of existence itself, government is provided the ordination it needs.

Especially as society grows larger and more complex, the distribution of wealth and access to natural resources becomes an increasingly pressing concern.

In every example we have from history, those with wealth and resources are either in positions of political power and authority, or else use these to manipulate political leadership in their favor. The one with the gold, rules.

The third culture block is Technology and Science. As necessity is the mother of invention, the need for resources has been a major driver of new technologies. Tools, instruments, machines, weapons, and sophisticated infotech are innovations that typically have their beginnings in the quest to do more with less, to turn a profit or achieve an aim with less investment of time, energy, capital, and labor.

When technology for the manufacturing of tools got repurposed into instruments for the acquisition of knowledge, the scientific enterprise was born. Technology and Science have been co-evolving for millenniums, and the resulting alterations to our cosmology (or model of reality) over that time have been truly revolutionary. By formulating and testing mathematical explanations of order on all scales of magnitude, our knowledge of the universe has grown exponentially.

Now we can place the three culture blocks side by side on a timeline to complete my picture. Each block serves to connect society to a dimension of time: Morality and Religion to the past for anchorage; Politics and Economics to the present challenge of government; Technology and Science to the future of progress.

Together religion and science compose the narratives (i.e., religious myths and scientific theories) that weave our social construction of meaning. By this map we chart our way of life.

An interesting dynamic has been unfolding over the past 2,300 years or so, as updates and revolutions in our scientific model of reality have completely reconstructed the cosmological frame on which religion draped its great myths. The transformation from a vertically oriented (up and down) three-story universe to a radially oriented (out and across) expanding cosmos has complicated our ability to take the myths seriously anymore.

Many are siding with science and against religion, while others are insisting that the myths aren’t myths at all – now a synonym for superstition and fallacy – but rather factual accounts of supernatural realms, metaphysical entities, and miraculous events.

As I have tried to show in other posts, both sides are misinterpreting what originally were (and still are, if we can recover our spiritual intuition) metaphorical depictions of the essential oneness in which we live and move and have our being.

Back to my starting observation about the back-and-forth misunderstanding between conservatives and liberals, fundamentalists and progressives, democrats and capitalists, dreamers and doomsayers. While many of them have important things to say, they may not realize that they are using very different filters (i.e., paradigms, or my term culture blocks) in their constructions of meaning. Consequently they can’t understand each other, which removes any possibility of reaching agreement and living in peace.

Perhaps if we can engage in dialogue fully conscious of where (i.e., in which block) our beliefs, values, and aims are located, we might make some headway together. And by acknowledging that our preferred vantage point is not the only place from which an intelligent perspective can be held, the larger discourse of culture has a better chance of including us all.

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking About Religion

Recently in the Wisdom Circle I attend we engaged a discussion on the difference between “inflexible” and “flexible” knowledge. Inflexible knowledge is when our understanding of something is fused to the particular example by which it was first introduced. We are not yet able to think of it abstractly – or in other words, apart from its concrete instantiation.

Flexible knowledge is achieved when we’ve reached an understanding of the principles informing this and conceivably all examples of the same type.

Needless to say, education needs to be committed to helping people move from inflexible to flexible knowledge in any subject. Thankfully the normal progression in brain development unfolds through a “concrete operational” stage and opens a capacity for “formal operations” and abstract reasoning by the second decade.

And yet, there are plenty of us adults whose knowledge of a subject is oddly inflexible, given the direction our brains would otherwise have us go. I could pick any number of subjects, but as it is one of my favorites in this blog, let’s consider religion.

Probably most people I know hold an inflexible knowledge of religion.

  • This may be due to the fact that their only exposure to it was back in childhood, and then only on holidays and special occasions. Now as adults they still consider religion (in this case, Christianity) through the filter of what church was like for them back then.
  • Or perhaps in their younger years they were victims of religious abuse – made to feel guilty, depraved, and hell-bound unless they submitted to church authority and “accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.” It wasn’t possible to get out fast enough, but they left with the impression of religion – again, this religion, this particular church – as repressive, judgmental, and narrow-minded.
  • And then it’s possible that their inflexible knowledge of religion is more than anything else a symptom of our modern admiration of science and secular interests. Science set us free from superstition, magical thinking, and metaphysical nonsense. All of that is religion, and we’re better off without it. Not some early or traumatic exposure, in other words, but really a lack of exposure whatsoever: just religion in general, thrown under a categorical gloss as pre-modern and culturally irrelevant.

I don’t dispute the claim that much of religion today is irrelevant. The various examples of religion we see around us do indeed appear stuck in tradition and wedded to worldviews millennia out of date. But does this mean that religion itself is obsolete?

Let’s go back to the critical distinction made above. Could it be that the widespread negative opinion on religion held by most people I know is itself a product and feature of inflexible knowledge? Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that you hold such an opinion. For you, religion is a hopeless tangle of pre-scientific notions, irrational fears, abusive authority, worn-out convictions, and otherworldly distractions – made up, let us say, of just these five threads.

Here are some questions for you to consider.

Numerous Exposures

On how many separate occasions were you confronted by all five threads of religion, as you are defining it? Maybe you think that one exposure to abusive authority was enough! I’m not suggesting that you should have stayed. But is it rational (or fair) to conclude from your one negative exposure that nothing of genuine value is to be found there?

Maybe you had numerous exposures to the same abuse in that church. Still, is it reasonable for you to transfer your indictment from that particular church to its parent religion, and from there to all religions, even to religion itself?

Different Angles

Through how many facets of religion were you confronted by all five of these threads? Examples of what I mean by an angle (or facet) would include sacred ceremony, theological instruction, moral codes, social structure, orthodox beliefs, devotional practices, and mystical experience.

Each angle of exposure renders a unique impression of what a religion is about. Has your experience of religion been multifaceted or more narrow in focus? If more narrow, is it rational of you to inflate one facet into a representation of this religion as a whole – and again, of all religions and even religion itself?

Wider Variety

How many different kinds of religion have you experienced, or even carefully studied? If you had a negative experience once, or even many times in a single religion (say the Christian church of your youth), is it logical for you to conclude that churches of other Christian denominations, or faith communities of other non-Christian religions are the same?

Exposure to a wider variety of religions forces open the conceptual frame by which you define one religion or another – unless, of course, you are ready to take just your example as “religion,” dismissing all the others as something else. But how reasonable is that?

Deeper Elements

How far under the surface features of religion have you gone, in any kind of intellectually disciplined analysis? By deeper elements I mean not only the more esoteric notions (i.e., reserved for those on the inside) and historically formative material that makes each religion unique, but (deeper still) the intuitions of presence, ground, unity, and mystery – the source-experience of religion itself.

Such intuitions may be mediated and expressed through a religion’s symbol system, but their direct experience is spontaneous and ineffable (beyond words). A disciplined analysis can break into a myth, for instance, in order to contemplate its root metaphors. But these, rather than taken literally (which by definition amounts to a denial of depth), are followed to the edge of mystery and finally released for the direct experience itself.


You can be said to possess a flexible knowledge of religion when (1) you’ve had numerous exposures to a single religion (2) from several distinct angles; when (3) you have participated across a wide variety of different religions, and successfully (4) penetrated its surface to the present mystery of reality, to the ground of your own being where all is one.

With those qualifications in place, we can now pick up our dialogue on religion.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Method of Dialogue, Final Step: Resolution

We’ve been digging into my Mentallurgy Method of Dialogue in order to understand its progression of steps or phases.

Preparation addresses the critical importance for each would-be partner to arrive at the table in the most resourceful state possible. Consideration begins to create the space where partners can search for common ground and clarify what they really want. Deliberation takes this desired outcome and weighs it against other factors that serve to refine and amplify its value.

The fourth and final step in creative dialogue is called RESOLUTION, which not only signifies a strategic achievement (i.e., achieving the goal partners set for themselves) but, even more importantly, a crucial breakthrough in their synergy together where they become a genuine community (communitas, together as one).

RESOLUTION isn’t necessarily a ‘last step’ in the sequence, therefore, since such breakthroughs (in higher degrees) are both the effect of earlier/deeper phases of transformation as well as the creative fuse for what’s still to come.

All along the way, then, and not just at the end. In a sense, Preparation, Consideration, and Deliberation each represents a resolution of its own, as it fuels and supports the larger process of community formation. In the back-and-forth, up-and-down flow of dialogue, partners experience a more satisfying and meaningful way of being together.

From the very beginning, as individuals are preparing themselves for creative engagement in the co-construction of meaning, RESOLUTION is already evident.

Becoming 100% present – that is, coming back to a grounded, centered, and open state of consciousness from our ‘normal’ condition of distracted attention – is what we might call existential resolution: the resolution of each individual to be fully present in the here-and-now.

Because creative dialogue and community formation name an organic process and not a mechanical procedure, self-transcendence is inherent to its dynamic. Each phase gathers and incorporates the deeper evolutionary achievement, establishes a new center of higher integrity, and prepares for the leap beyond to what’s next. This taking-up, re-centering, and going-beyond is the very essence of a living thing; we must remember that a community is alive and not merely ‘made up’ of living things.

Still, there is forward direction to the organic process. Each living thing carries within itself the ideal of its own future fulfillment, as the vibrant fruit-bearing apple tree sleeps inside the seed and gradually wakes into fuller self-actualization. In other posts I have argued for the deep equivalence of human fulfillment (or self-actualization) and genuine community, that human beings only come fully into themselves with the rise of community, just as genuine community is the consilient (leaping-together) effect of their fulfillment as individuals.

Creative dialogue is how this happens.

In my Introduction I made the point that creative dialogue is fundamentally different from a mere strategy meeting where committee members define a goal, design their plan, take assignments, and execute the steps to completion. A committee comes together for this purpose, and when its objective has been achieved there is no further reason for it to exist. A community, quite otherwise, may orient engagement around strategic objectives, but its deeper reason for being is as a transformer of consciousness, a convergence of creative intention, and a new way of being together as one.

RESOLUTION can be analyzed on each of these dimensions: consciousness, creativity, and communion. Pragmatically speaking, a committee has no real interest in any of them. According to the Mentallurgy Method of Dialogue we’ve been exploring, the resolution that partners seek necessarily includes them all, for in genuine community it’s never enough just to ‘get the work done’. Partners engage each other in this process with the aim of becoming more fully human and growing together as one.

Community is not just an evolutionary and mystical enterprise, however. In the earlier phases of creative dialogue partners do real pick-and-shovel work as they practice presence, search for common ground, clarify their desired outcome, and work out a strategy.

As an endeavor in the co-construction of meaning, dialogue involves much more than waiting on inspiration and its gratuitous flashes of insight. Identifying mutual interests and shared values, voicing perspectives and reflecting back what partners hear from each other, coming to agreement on a desired outcome and sharpening the signal by weighing the risk, the cost, and the work entailed in making it a reality – none of this is easy, or even fun for that matter.


All of this can seem manageable, and even exciting, unless our challenge has to do with resolving conflict. For partners who start the process of creative dialogue in a spirit of camaraderie, the work of co-constructing meaning and growing into community is more enjoyable, for the obvious reasons. But individuals who step (or perhaps feel dragged) into this process because their differences are not only threatening to undermine what they once had together, but to dissolve their hopes, their family, their property, their dignity, and their sanity along with it – well, they don’t feel very much like ‘partners’ at all.

It’s tempting to jump in where the fire is hottest and try to fix what’s wrong. But especially in such cases, the four steps of creative dialogue need to be taken in order. We don’t jump in to fix the problem; besides, opponents will most likely disagree on where (and with whom) the real problem lies anyway. Instead, each individual begins with PREPARATION by shifting to a more grounded, centered, and open state of being. The issue at the center of the fire can wait just a few minutes.

To become partners, individuals need to release their judgments, the baggage from their past, the storyline of their conflict, and even release the identities they have constructed for themselves around it.

I suspect that most – approaching all – of our disagreements and conflicts, rooted as they are in our differences, are capable of being resolved if only we can bring an inner peace to the table. The human spirit is creative, intelligent, playful, generous … and resilient.

When we take the time to let go of who we think we are and come back to the here-and-now, we will find the wellspring within, providing all we need to work things out.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Method of Dialogue, Step Three: Deliberation

Making meaning in community can be difficult work. Even in what I call ‘genuine community’ there will be misunderstandings and occasional conflict. Partners in community don’t always get along, but when they find themselves at odds they know how to work together for resolution.

In this mini-series of blog posts I am describing the steps or phases of a method for engaging dialogue, building community, and resolving conflict. My Mentallurgy Method of Dialogue is based on a therapeutic approach that empowers individuals to take creative control of their lives.

Much about life is beyond our control, but where we put our focus – what we think about, what beliefs we hold, what feelings we have, and what we do with all this internal mentallurgy – is ours to decide.

So far, we’ve explored the phases of preparation and consideration. Individuals need to be fully present before they can engage each other as partners in creative dialogue. Once engaged, they need to focus their work on opening a space where each can feel safe, welcome, and included. As I explained, the phase of consideration is ‘considerate’ of the differences that partners bring to the table; but it also helps them transcend their differences in a quest for common ground.

Only by staying on the narrow path between urgency (Scylla) and conviction (Charybdis) can we identify the mutual interests and shared values that will lead us to resolution. In this post we will look deeper into the third phase of creative dialogue, DELIBERATION, where partners enjoin a strategy for clarifying their desired outcome.

In Mentallurgy we give a color-code to four primary attitudes or energy states of human beings. Green represents desire, gratitude, and hope. Yellow stands for fear, anxiety, and worry. Red means anger, frustration, and resentment. Finally, Blue is our color-code for sadness, disappointment, and grief. An aim of therapy is to help the client (called a “creator”) to more consistently ‘lean into green’ – or in other words, keep their focus on what they really want.

Individuals often seek therapy in the first place because their focus has gotten stuck on things that make them feel anxious, frustrated, or disappointed. In short, they’re focusing on what they don’t want and can’t get unstuck.

In the DELIBERATION phase of creative dialogue partners clarify their desired result, commonly called the goal (‘G’ in the diagram above). The goal is what they want to reach, accomplish, or achieve. It’s not merely getting to the box and checking it off, however, for the partners anticipate some kind of positive gain upon reaching the goal. This gain is the reward, payoff, benefit, or advantage their success will bring about.

Simply put, it’s not the goal itself, which is just a mark for measuring progress, but the gain expected through its achievement that partners really want. That’s why ‘gain’ is color-coded green.

From Latin for “to balance or weigh,” DELIBERATION in this context is about weighing a desired result and its anticipated gain against three other factors – all while maintaining focus on the goal. It may be tempting to simply ignore these other factors and fixate only on what we want. But this is the ignórance I mentioned in an earlier post, which is a willful disregard of things that we should be taking into account.

So, what are these other factors?

Risk

In any important endeavor there will always be some factor of risk, referring to the probability of failure – that we won’t reach our goal and get what we want (gain). Partners in dialogue who are working to clarify a truly meaningful goal need to understand that the risk of failure or falling short of their goal is one of the factors that actually elevate its value.

If there’s no risk whatsoever, the goal will fail to inspire and motivate, which is a failure of much greater consequence than merely falling short of a target. In DELIBERATION partners conspire to factor manageable risk into their strategy, not out of it. But then again, if there’s too much risk attached to their goal, the high probability of failure will likely distract partners from their creative work. That’s why the risk needs to be ‘manageable’: neither overwhelming nor nonexistent.

Cost

Any meaningful goal will take time; it may also take money or other resources to make it a reality. In this calculus of success, cost is what we need to give up, sacrifice, or lose in the process. So if gain is the anticipated value added, cost is the value we are willing to give over for its sake. Of course, we run the risk of this trade going badly, of losing more than we gain. Giving time to the collaborative pursuit of a goal at least means that partners are taking time away from other interests and commitments.

Just as with risk, however, if what partners really want costs them nothing, their goal will have little attraction or value. It won’t motivate or inspire their best effort. Cost-free ventures are generally not very interesting or fulfilling. Partners should work to minimize the cost but not discount it so much as to render their goal worthless.

Work

The third factor that needs to be weighed against the anticipated gain of achieving a goal addresses the effort it takes to get there. There should always be a challenge gradient or degree of difficulty associated with worthwhile projects. Otherwise, if a goal is effortless, it won’t be worth much. In many cases, the degree of satisfaction partners feel upon reaching a goal is proportional to the amount of effort they put into its pursuit.

When we lower the challenge gradient – as schools have been doing for students in order to show more impressive success statistics to external funders and state legislatures – we end up diminishing the factor that might otherwise help individuals discover and develop their true potential.


DELIBERATION in creative dialogue is the serious business where partners define their goal, clarify the gain they anticipate with its accomplishment, and carefully weigh this gain against the probability of failure (risk), what they will need to give up for its sake (cost), and how much effort it will require (work).

By keeping all these factors in balance, all the while ‘leaning into green’, partners will be able to draw on the strength of their synergy and grow into genuine community.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Method of Dialogue, Step Two: Consideration


Let’s remind ourselves: Dialogue is different from mere conversation, topic discussion, or competitive debate in the way it involves partners in the co-construction of meaning. Dialogue is about working together; its back-and-forth exchanges are conducted in the interest of respecting differences, building rapport, finding common ground, and cooperating toward a satisfying and meaningful resolution.

The first characteristic mentioned above – respecting differences – creates a space where the subsequent tasks of building rapport, finding common ground, and reaching resolution stand a chance. Without it, creative dialogue and genuine community have no hope.

In a period of history when difference is a predictable and inescapable part of our cultural landscape, learning how to respect differences has become a new and precious survival skill.

Once upon a time, perhaps, a dialogical method of community formation could be the special interest of a relative few – the sages, mediators, and therapists the rest of us went to with our problems. Now we all need the know-how. Those specialized professions aside, an ordinary person today cannot afford to be ignorant about it, and those of us guilty of ignórance (i.e., willful ignorance) will increasingly be the ‘new terrorists’ of the future.

In this post we will explore the second step or phase of creative dialogue, assuming that we are familiar with – and actively practicing – step one, Preparation. As I explained in that earlier post, dialogical community is an organic process depending on individuals who are intentionally engaging the practice of being grounded in the here-and-now, centered in themselves, and open to reality. With this necessary ‘work before the work’ underway, the process can advance to the CONSIDERATION phase.

The word ‘consider’ literally refers to thinking “with the stars” (con + sidus); contemplating a question, challenge, issue, or opportunity inside a larger (cosmic!) context. In a disciplined way CONSIDERATION reaches out and beyond our immediate reactions or personal opinions in order to navigate – think of sailors navigating their ships by the stars – our best way through a situation.

In my Mentallurgy Method of Dialogue, the singular purpose of CONSIDERATION is to find a way through our differences, to a resolution that will be both satisfying and meaningful to everyone involved.

Finding a way through should naturally make us wonder: between what? According to this method, we seek a way between ‘urgency’ and ‘conviction’. My diagram above sets urgency and conviction at the extremes of a continuum. Actually, they name what results when this continuum snaps and releases its otherwise creative energy into fixated compulsions.

Urgency is the frantic feeling that an opportunity is closing down, resources are slipping away, and we won’t get what we need. On the other side, conviction is when thinking gets trapped inside conclusions that aren’t obviously true but must be true if the meaning of our lives is to hold together. Almost by definition a conviction is beyond question and hence self-excluded from creative dialogue.

As you might imagine – heck, just recall a time recently when a challenge to your convictions backed you into a corner where you lashed out in self-defense – when the continuum snaps, urgency and conviction fuse into something no longer creative but potentially destructive. At the very least, it puts an end to dialogue.

In Homer’s Odyssey, Odysseus must steer his ship through the Strait of Messina, between Scylla, a six-headed sea monster, on one side, and Charybdis, a crushing whirlpool, on the other.* These metaphors are perfect descriptions of what is meant by urgency and conviction. Urgency makes us panic and scramble for cover, while conviction pulls us into tighter and more constrictive spirals of thinking. Such are what happen when we begin to feel threatened, unappreciated, or left out.

CONSIDERATION has the aim and purpose of creating a space where dialogue partners feel safe, welcome, and included. Only then can we acknowledge our differences and explore common ground in a spirit of mutual positive regard and kindness – a second meaning of CONSIDERATION in this context.

When we’re not snapping to the extremes of urgency or conviction, the creative tension inherent to the continuum is available for the work of co-constructing meaning.

Instead of referring to this continuum obliquely as we’ve done so far, we can now analyze it into its constitutive elements. Ask yourself, “What makes something meaningful?” These elements provide the answer: Something is meaningful to us when it (1) impinges on our basic needs, (2) is an object or subject of interest, (3) carries, reflects, or otherwise represents our values, and (4) is compatible with or validates our beliefs.

Touch on all four elements at once and you have a construct that is highly meaningful; touch just one and not others – such as believing something abstract or imaginary with no bearing in real life – and your construct is correspondingly low in meaning.

Seeing these elements on a continuum helps partners appreciate where they stand the best chance of finding common ground. Not so much in their individual needs, as these can easily snap the continuum into urgency. And neither in their personal beliefs, as these can easily snap the continuum into conviction. In either case, their engagement will be tapping very close to the less stable extremes on the continuum of meaning.

Instead, partners are more likely to find common ground in their mutual interests and shared values, where each is positively invested but typically not so defensive. Interests and values are less binary (on/off, right/wrong) than needs and beliefs, which makes them easier to negotiate and even modify.

The CONSIDERATION phase of creative dialogue is where partners ask questions and reflect back to each other what they hear. Reflections are opportunities for partners to confirm, clarify, or correct what they are hearing from each other so that a more accurate understanding can be reached.

An invitation to translate their individual needs into interests and their personal beliefs into values opens the path of creative dialogue by helping partners focus on what they have in common. Mutual interests and shared values: this is the way through.


* In Homer’s story Odysseus chooses to pass too close to Scylla and lose only a few of his sailors, rather than get pulled into Charybdis and lose his entire ship. My Method of creative dialogue seeks the mid-line where both dangers can be avoided.
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Method of Dialogue, Step One: Preparation

A method is not like a machine, where once you get it going you can step back and leave it alone. This is particularly true when we’re talking about a method of dialogue and community formation. To step back from dialogue is to abort the process and abandon community.

Furthermore, dialogue and community simply do not happen where individuals are not invested in the work.

That’s why PREPARATION is the first step or phase in the Mentallurgy Method of Dialogue that we’re exploring in this five-part series of blog posts (Introduction + each of the four steps). If individuals and would-be partners in dialogue mistakenly think that they are stepping into some kind of automatic machine for making community and cranking out creative resolutions, the process doesn’t stand a chance.

The higher consciousness represented in the spiritual phenomenon of community does not (and cannot) exist separate from the individuals whose creative intentions combine and fuse in its consilient effect.

Neither is PREPARATION for dialogue a simple routine that we do as a way of getting ready for the really important stuff. As an organic process, community awakens and unfolds out of the deeper presence that partners bring to the encounter. And although I am analyzing my method of dialogue into four steps, we shouldn’t think of these as stacking blocks or even as stepping stones where we leave one for the next in line.

It’s preferable to regard them as phases, as in the developmental transformations from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly. Just as the butterfly doesn’t stack on top of these earlier manifestations or leave them behind, but rather incorporates and emerges out of them, our individual PREPARATION for dialogue is the interior source out of which community grows. No egg, no butterfly. No intentional presence of individual partners, no dialogue and no genuine community.

What I’m calling intentional presence can be further analyzed into three virtues, by which I don’t mean moral qualities but actuated powers, as when we speak of the potency of medicine as its virtue. In the case of our intentional presence as individuals, the virtues in our intention to be fully present can be differentiated in terms of our being grounded in existence, centered in ourselves, and open to reality.

When we are grounded, centered, and open, we are becoming more fully present.

It’s important to understand that these virtues of intentional presence are not the result of effort, as if we must work to become grounded in being, centered in ourselves, and open to reality. The truth is that we are already these, but our mind gets distracted or lured away from this truth, tangled up and captivated inside its own designs.

Each form of existence is grounded in being; if not, it wouldn’t be. Each individual is centered in itself; if not, it wouldn’t be one. And it’s also true that we are always open to reality – to the turning cosmos (or ‘universe’) and vibrant web of life; if not, we would instantly perish.

So we require some sort of practice – a technique, a ritual, a simple meditative exercise – that can help refocus our conscious attention on this place and this moment, commonly called the here-and-now. There is no single and set way of doing this, but the counsel from our numerous wisdom traditions is pretty straightforward: Be still. Be quiet. Close your eyes and just breathe. Let yourself simply relax into being.

If a focal object in front of you helps orient your attention; if soothing music and soft light help you calm down; if counting your breath occupies your mind and keeps it from wandering away, then include these supports as needed.

The purpose of such a practice is to allow all your insecurities, all your concerns, all your judgments, and all your expectations to just fall away. What’s left is boundless presence: grounded in being, centered right where you are, and open to it all.

As we should expect, such practices of intentional presence take on the character of our local cultures and traditions. And because historically it has been the enterprise responsible for mediating our minds to the present mystery of reality, we should neither be surprised nor offended if such practices still carry some of the formal features of religion.

It is possible to ‘liberate’ intentional presence from these traditional accouterments, however; which is what we must do if our aspiration is to engage dialogue and create community across cultures in this increasingly secular and global age.

Individual PREPARATION ensures – or more accurately, makes it more likely – that the productive dialogue and consilient effect of genuine community can arise. When partners take the time to be fully present (grounded, centered, and open), the dialogical phase of consideration can begin. We’ll explore that next.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,