Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Elaine Hansen on May 20, 2012 at 1:32pm

Hi Mark 

Sleep did not come last night for me...this happens once in a blue moon - and last night was it.

For now, this is the best I can come up in response to your comments.  

It seems like we are using language differently - which is contributing to our not understanding each other. There is no hostility on my part. [Only you know what in my invitation to pass led you to interpret it as hostile.]

And, it feels like we are more in agreement than these comments might indicate - Instead, I am left wondering if we only have different approaches to the same issues.

If the dissent conversations you are having are working for you, then keep it up.

I am merely weary of the same old dissent conversations - they suck the life out of me - and nothing changes. (As I am 64, believe me I have had plenty of the old dissent conversations.)

For now, the A Small Group types of conversations are working for me - and are life giving to me. They have shifted my internal thinking and feeling. And it is all a theory, an idea that Peter has - no certainty.  It is a form of Action Research every time we host these conversations - the conversations continue to evolve and be refined. Peter has invited me to these conversations and I show up and engage.

Not everyone likes or understands the conversations - and that is okay. It is not realistic to think one size fits all. We are all finding our way through this thing called life.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on May 20, 2012 at 3:32pm

Thank you, Elaine. I'm 72, and I'm curious as to where you encountered the dissent conversations that grew so repetitive that they wearied you. In my own experience, dissent is usually silenced and dissent conversations are rare.

I'm sorry you weren't able to sleep. That can be extremely disturbing because our minds don't get a chance to relax. 

You are probably correct that we are using language differently and that we have different approaches to the same issues. 

Peter Block seems to be a very inspirational person. 

I'm glad that you don't feel hostile towards me. I misinterpreted the suggestion to "pass" as being a form of, "love it or leave it." To remain at the table on the condition of remaining silent, didn't seem right to me.

In the six years that I've been advocating that people not vote, I've seen great changes. At first, if I posted that suggestion on self-styled liberal and progressive social forums, I would be attacked by teams of political operatives and absolutely nobody would agree with me. Little by little that began to change. Nowadays when I make the same suggestion on the same forums, more people agree with me than don't. I always responded to personal attacks with reasoned arguments, never responding in kind. For example, if somebody said I was crazy, instead of calling them names, I'd respond by attempting to clarify my thinking and giving the reasons behind it. As time went on, it became obvious to everyone that those who were calling me names had no rational arguments to refute my reasoning, and more and more people began to support my position. 

Hearing from Ben that Peter Block had articulated the same suggestion, made me very happy. I want to learn more about Mr. Block and about these conversations, and if there is a place for me here. For various reasons I don't participate in the phone conversations, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate online and I thank you for leaving that open.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Elaine Hansen on May 21, 2012 at 10:17am

Mark - in an earlier post you questioned the "possibilities vs. problem solving" statement.

As I've now had some sleep, here is another way of thinking of the problem solving conversation vs. the possibility conversation: 

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein  (I've heard Peter use this phrase when he is setting the context for the ASG conversations.)

Love that!  

I would add that problem solving frequently deteriorates into trying to argue someone out of their "opinion".  My experience has been that it is impossible to argue anyone out of their opinion or their perceptions.  They are the expert of their stories...not me.  

(trying to logic someone out of their point of view is crazymaking for me)  I've been known to tell people who are trying to convince me I'm wrong - that I can see the logic of what they are saying and I accept that my point of view is coming from an irrational place - but that does not change how "I feel".

For me, using the ASG conversation process, takes the conversation out of the box and opens the possibility that something will shift for me and/or my partner in the conversation. Which could then lead to a different or new action. Think of it as taking an end run around our normal thinking "ruts" :)

For now, this is where my thinking and feelings are. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on May 21, 2012 at 2:37pm

You're only the second person I've ever seen admit that they act on their feelings, even when they are aware that their feelings are coming from an irrational place. 

The first one is somebody I also admire and respect, who wrote, when I asked why they had not responded to my arguments, "I did not respond because I have nothing to add to your excellent feedback - one way or the other. All valid arguments for your case. But most of us, and I do admit to including myself, do not act on reason - we act on gut. That sort of makes you a lonely person? But courageous nonetheless. Keep speaking out."

If the ASG conversation process can lead people to find the new ways of thinking that Einstein said are necessary, I have no doubt that Margaret Mead was right and it has the potential to change the world. But new ways of thinking aren't going to accomplish anything if people act from their feelings rather than from their thoughts. 

I'm glad you got some sleep, Elaine. Thank you for taking the time to engage with me and to answer my questions. That makes me feel like I'm a part of the conversation process and that I do have a place at the table.

Permalink Reply by Ben Roberts on May 21, 2012 at 6:29pm

Mark, you wrote: "new ways of thinking aren't going to accomplish anything if people act from their feelings rather than from their thoughts."  Can you say more about that?  Does this perspective relate to your responses to all the talk here at OC about "coming from the heart?"  

I think we may be uncovering a valuable insight at the core of the mutual feelings of disconnect we have experienced on more than one occasion! 

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on May 21, 2012 at 7:41pm

Yes, Ben, I think may very well be at the core of the disconnect.

I got the reply, "But most of us, and I do admit to including myself, do not act on reason - we act on gut," in August 2011, and I was stunned, and have done a lot of thinking about it ever since. 

So when Elaine quoted Einstein, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them," but went on to say, "I've been known to tell people who are trying to convince me I'm wrong - that I can see the logic of what they are saying and I accept that my point of view is coming from an irrational place - but that does not change how 'I feel,'" it hit me very hard. I understood it as, "We need new and different ways of thinking, but that probably won't change how we feel, so we're likely to continue to act in the same old ways."

If my thinking changes, my actions are likely to change accordingly. When I thought that voting could make a difference, I took it very seriously, examined the candidates and the issues carefully, and was conscientious about voting. Once I had done enough research to understand that, in Sibel Edmonds' words, "...going to the polls is an exercise in futility," for many reasons, including that the votes don't have to be counted, that the results are not verifiable, that elected officials are not bound to represent their constituents, etc., I stopped voting. 

If I'm knocking on a friend's door and I have an urgent reason to see them, I'm apt to keep knocking for a long time, as they might be asleep, in the shower, or wearing headphones and not hear the knock. But if a neighbor tells me that my friend isn't home, that they saw my friend leave a few minutes before I got there and I look and see that my friend's car isn't in their garage, I'll stop knocking because I know that it won't do any good. New information changes how I think, and that will cause me to change my actions.

It would be irrational for me to keep knocking on the door once I know my friend isn't home. I may have an urgent need to see my friend, and I may feel the urge to keep knocking on the door even if they aren't home, but I won't. Yet there are people who will keep knocking on the door anyway, because they're acting from their gut or their feelings and they don't care how irrational and unproductive their actions are. They're doing what they want to do and neither information or reason enter into it. We can tell them their friend isn't home and even prove to them that their friend isn't home, but they'll just become impatient, tell us to please go away, and they'll keep right on knocking. 

Obviously such people cannot be swayed by reason or argument, and the only way to reach them is through their hearts and their feelings. I don't know how that works or even if it really does work. If I say that I can understand their need to see their friend, and their feeling that continuing to knock on the door, despite the fact that their friend isn't home, brings them a sense of satisfaction and a feeling that they're doing something, isn't it more likely that I'll express my empathy by joining them in knocking at the door, than that they'll consider stopping? 

A lot of irrational behavior, in my opinion, stems from wanting to belong, to feel a part of a community, and to act in ways that express conformance rather than dissent, so as to fit in. The famous psychological experiments where most people will deny what they see if a majority of people around them claim to see it differently, is a case in point. In extreme circumstances, people can go along with atrocities they know and feel are wrong, because everybody else is doing it. 

My friend who talked about acting from the gut was lying to themself. This person is a peace activist and watching them read an anti-war poem they'd written, it was quite clear that their gut isn't telling them to vote for pro-war candidates as they do. Their gut is telling them to oppose war--something else is telling them to vote for pro-war candidates. I happen to know that something is membership in local political party clubs where this person is not only able to feel part of a community, but is a recognized leader. 

If communities of the heart can lead people to act in irrational and harmful ways, ways that, were they not part of a community, their hearts would instantly reject, how can that be the solution?

I have no answers, Ben, but I've got plenty of thoughts and feelings to share and I'm grateful for a place to share them.

Permalink Reply by Ben Roberts on May 21, 2012 at 10:27pm

As is the case in a number of your posts, Mark, the analogy you use doesn't work for me.  You construct stories like the one about someone  knocking on a door when they know no one is there, claim that that analogy is representative of what Elaine is trying to communicate and then wonder how "how can that be the solution?"

But is it possible you are misinterpreting Elaine with this story?  What if you followed her suggestion and replaced certainty with curiosity?  We would have some very different conversations, and I daresay they might be more useful and less exhausting for all involved.

For example, did you know that scientific evidence based on brain studies is now showing that we cannot reason effectively or make choices without using our emotions?

Here's another example.  You write, quite accurately, that "a lot of irrational behavior, in my opinion, stems from wanting to belong, to feel a part of a community, and to act in ways that express conformance rather than dissent, so as to fit in."  You then conclude that heart-based thinking is what leads to such a pattern and therefore that what we are up to here is similar.  

In fact, the culture we seek to create, and that we have demonstrated is entirely possible, works the opposite way.  By welcoming dissent, we can create an authentic sense of belonging that does not exist when it is stifled.  Does this possibility interest you, or is it more important to be "right" about the idea that something "heart-centered" is irrational and conformist?

Here's what I'm really curious about right now, Mark.  What is your heart telling you?  Two of the most challenging questions in the Dissent conversations are these:

• What forgiveness are you withholding?
• What resentment do you hold that no one knows about?

It's fine, as you know, to "pass!"

Permalink Reply by Elaine Hansen on May 22, 2012 at 12:00am

Ben and Mark - thanks for the additions and continuing the conversation. Having followed your threads and re-read what I wrote this morning (which was perfectly clear and explicit to me - at the time) - I am once again confronted with the limitations of writing in a forum. I am so much more comfortable talking.

Mark -

#1 - Ben is correct in that I think you have taken my comments out of  context. 

When I talked about Einsteins' quote about using the same thinking to solve the problem that that thinking created - it was to communicate to you that I have found the ASG conversations opens up a different way of thinking - it takes a different approach and invites an end run around how our brain is conditioned to re-act by past events.  It takes us out of our ruts...limbic system.

The new brain science is fascinating.

# 2 - On another aspect of my comment - I think I muddied the waters - so to speak - when I threw in the side note about "you can't argue anyone out of their opinion or their perceptions." And then my example of saying -  you can't logic me out of how “I feel".

I'm going to try to clarify what I meant by that and I hope I don't make this more confusing...

Here is my hypothesis:  we are all irrational in our thinking. :)  We like to think we are rational, logical creatures but maybe we're not.  (check Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational")

What I mean when I say you can't change how someone else feels is this - we feel what we feel. You can tell me I shouldn't be angry or sad or whatever - but I still feel that way. You have no control over my thoughts, beliefs, or feelings...and most of the time, even I am not aware of what is behind my feelings. 

However, if a person’s self-awareness is raised they can decide to slow down their processes to explore what their beliefs and thoughts were behind their feelings and maybe begin practicing a new response.  It will take time to re-program the brain to feel differently (limbic lag) – but awareness is the first step.

I know this works because I’ve used this process to change my own thinking and beliefs. Having different thoughts and beliefs leads to having different feelings.

Did I give you enough for this to be clear now?  I could give you examples.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on May 22, 2012 at 12:44am

Ben, the analogy of knocking on a door when you know nobody is home, is an example of acting irrationally. Elaine said, "I've been known to tell people who are trying to convince me I'm wrong - that I can see the logic of what they are saying and I accept that my point of view is coming from an irrational place - but that does not change how 'I feel,'" so I think it is a valid analogy. It is an example of somebody doing something based on a feeling, knocking on the door because they want to see their friend, without letting the fact that the person isn't home change how they feel or change how they act. 

While it might not be representative of what Elaine was trying to communicate, it is representative of my peace activist friend who votes for pro-war candidates. It is acting irrationally, without regard to facts or reason, and it is not acting from the gut or the heart, because it disregards those feelings also. My friend is fully aware that voting for pro-war candidates will not do anything to bring about peace, and simply refuses to discuss the issue with me. It is my personal observation that people who know they are acting irrationally don't want to talk about it. If they're determined to continue to act irrationally, reasoned arguments are an irrelevant nuisance.

Of course we cannot reason without using our emotions. I don't know how people who act against their own emotions, manage it. I can't. 

I don't think that just because something is heart-centered, it must be irrational and conformist. What I'm trying to say is that just because an action is irrational, does not mean that it is heart-centered. 

What forgiveness am I withholding? I'm not forgiving people for hurting others, particularly people who claim that they don't want to hurt others and care deeply about others. If a person's heart is good, how does it excuse them if they act in ways that are not from their good heart, and claim that the reason their acts appear irrational is because they're from their heart? If somebody has a good heart and doesn't want to hurt others, but acts in ways that hurt others, those actions cannot be coming from their heart. 

I'm not all that big on forgiveness. Even Bishop Tutu said that the Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa wasn't successful. Some people confessed to atrocities, were forgiven, and went right out and committed more atrocities. That wasn't how it was supposed to work. I find it difficult to forgive people for hurting me or hurting others until they stop doing it. 

As for what resentment I hold that nobody knows about, I'm not sure there is one. I usually speak out about things I resent. I've done things that I didn't want to do because I felt at the time that I had no choice, and I resented being put in that position, but I complained loud and long about it every time, and tried to avoid it happening again. 

Michael Bakunin said, "I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible." Thinking of some of the politicians and businessmen who are now possible, and who seem to delight in hurting others, I also, like Bakunin, feel fully justified in remaining impossible. If people can tolerate a Jamie Dimon, a Barack Obama, and an Anthony Scalia, it shouldn't be that difficult for them to tolerate me. 

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on May 22, 2012 at 2:15am

I like that, Elaine. OF course I can't change how a person feels. In fact, I feel very strongly that everyone is entitled to their feelings. I don't tell people who are depressed to cheer up, I tell them that they have a right to feel depressed, that it is a normal reaction to whatever caused them to feel depressed, and that it isn't a mental or emotional illness, it is a natural feeling when bad things happen. And simply by honoring and respecting their feelings, I've helped several people through bouts of severe depression. I've been through it myself, and I know how absurd I thought people were who tried to tell me how I should feel.

I agree about raising a person's self-awareness, but I also think it is important to raise their social consciousness as well. In other words, not to just examine how I feel, and what beliefs and thoughts are behind my feelings, but also to examine how society manipulates our thoughts and feelings deliberately, so as to convince people to support or at least not resist wars, environmental destruction, catastrophic economic policies, etc. If the beliefs and thoughts behind my feelings didn't originate with me, or with people who care about me, but with people who mean me no good, I'm much more apt to allow my feelings to change than if I believe that the feelings came from my heart.

I'm very glad you clarified your meaning, Elaine. If having different thoughts and beliefs leads to different feelings, which in turn can lead to different actions, then introducing different thoughts and beliefs is not a complete waste of time. 

Permalink Reply by Ben Roberts on May 22, 2012 at 8:07am

Thank you, Mark.  I appreciate your clarifying your views on feelings, and also sharing some of your own in answer to my questions.  I had to laugh when you copped to a tendency to not hold any of your resentments in!  And the forgiveness piece touched me.  Both for the depth of commitment and feeling it showed, and also perhaps for the pain I imagine might accompany being in that place of not forgiving.

In terms of our dialogue on dissent as a process, what I'm getting now is that it's DENIAL that you find unacceptable--that's the point of the door-knocking analogy.  And perhaps RESIGNATION is also something you are fighting, i.e. the sense that there's nothing we can do about the awful state of things, so why bother trying, or even talking about it except in a way that reinforces hopelessness.

I'm right there with you on those two concerns, as is Mr. Block. Indeed, they are among the the key forms of "inauthentic dissent" that he highlights.  He suggests that resignation, in particular, is "the ultimate act of powerlessness" and that "none of us is strong enough to carry the dead weight of others' resignation or even our own."

Finally, I want to support what I am hearing as a resistance to rules and restrictions on your freedom to show up as you choose.  It is a common purpose that can unite us, not some committee that tells everyone exactly what conversations they can and can't have.  As Meg Wheatley says, we face a paradox as living beings, in that both our individual freedom and our belonging to community are essential to life's continuity.  Too often, as you point out, our communities are not places where our life energy is supported and our individual autonomy is respected and encouraged.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on May 19, 2012 at 4:58pm

Thank you, Ben. If I could declare a vision of the future about a world where our government doesn't drone-bomb innocent people every day in our name, I would indeed be very happy with Peter Block's vision of a country where people, "choose to own and exercise power rather than defer and delegate it to others." It sounds so familiar that I could have said it myself and have done so many times.

How about this: Rather than "possibilities rather than problem solving," possibilities as a means of problem solving. That way there can't be any misinterpretation that problems don't exist or don't need to be solved.

There was a popular song when I was a kid, "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative," so that's old hat rather than new age. But Peter Block's statement allows for individual action to eliminate the negative (no longer deferring and delegating our responsibilities to others), rather than simply focusing on the positive. Although stated as a positive vision, it includes practical problem-solving by means of taking personal responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

You have a genius for seeing and expressing where and how people who appear to differ on fundamentals, are actually in agreement. Every time you do it, my respect for you increases exponentially, Ben. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page