Honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion...

[ding]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

 

[ding]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.

Now you make two very good points here, ding
I like and align with how you describe objectivity as
"not having a preference for an outcome"
That is a VERY clear description, and I think this language
would be helpful in spelling out FORMAL agreements how
to deal with political beliefs and biases in public policy and process.

[Personally, I would specify the difference between
* having a bias/preference on an outcome
* letting that affect judgment, and especially imposing it through a public policy decision where other people are objecting
and DON'T have the same preference for that outcome

- just because we HAVE a preference, doesn't mean it has to be exerted with unequal influence on the final outcome affecting others
- just because we don't LET the preferences we have skew the outcome beyond what others consent to equally, given their own preferences.
doesn't mean we DON'T have a preference on the outcome and "that's why" we're able to do that.

In mediation, a successful solution tends to have these characteristics
* both sides acknowledge the final result is not the outcome they originally preferred, but at least it is equal
* they both see that between them and the other side, both sides had to stretch equally outside
of what they originally wanted and preferred, in order to give and take and wind up with something
they can both accept, that at least covers the most important issues they were concerned about and doesn't compromise that,
and that equally includes both sides interests as much as could be obtained given their differences
* they both AGREE and CHOOSE/ACCEPT this outcome freely by knowing it is the best and fairest that could be done,
where neither side feels the other is forcing them MORE into it any more than they are forcing the other side

So I would say we STILL keep our preferences on the outcome, and still prefer something else.
But we recognize the other people involved are having to adjust equally on THEIR side,
and we BOTH agree not to let that stand in the way of working and including
what the OTHER people ALSO prefer as the outcome, equally as our own preferences.

I see this with prolife arguments.
Just because someone is prolife, and PREFERS to have laws that FAVOR prolife,
doesn't mean that has to affect their judgment and agreement by principle
to put Constitutional religious freedom principles first, and accommodate the beliefs of other people
who DON'T share and favor/prefer those same beliefs/bias toward prolife.

that doesn't change the fact those people STILL have a preference for prolife beliefs and bias in the outcomes.]

As for the second point you made, this also rings true with me:
the point about emulating others.

I agree that we raise the standards by examples we set.
If we show the mediation works and consensus/inclusion is possible,
it starts being a choice in people's minds to work toward or at least try for where possible.

right now, if all people see is bullying and coercion to get anywhere
"because the two sides of a conflict are not going to change,
and that's they only way to get anything done or passed at all"
then that's what they keep resorting to and rewarding.

I find this trend very disturbing.

Not only does it negate the Constitutional concepts and principles that
laws and democratic process should respect and protect individual rights of all people equally
ie "equal protection of the laws" and "equal justice under law"

but it sends mixed signals, and makes it harder to enforce a consistent standard:
on one hand we are telling kids NOT to bully in schools,
NOT to harass and discriminate against people who are "different"
but then we see our own national and party leaders
actively and verbally demonize and blame "people of the other affiliation or group/party"
as the ENEMY. And we fight to EXCLUDE and dominate over those views in order to defend our own?

Very conflicting message and approach,
and one I do not find to be sustainable but destructive
and not respectful of equal and inclusive relatìonships.

Mutual respect is key; where people go into arguments already "seeing the other person as representing a group they want to attack exclude and put down", if both sides do that, they won't get anywhere but just attack and defend. Our best bet is addressing each other "one on one" where there is a chance to get away from the fear that a whole other group is out to oppress us.
if we can hear what each other is saying, is concerned about and trying to address,
we can apply that to the larger groups and communicate across barriers of perception
keeping them at odds with each other. change occurs on the "molecular level" and usually
in tandem where two individuals from different viewpoints equally influence each other
to understand where the other is coming from instead of just rejecting and competing.
Because the dynamic is mutual, it is not a matter of one side forcing the other to change,
but both expand their process to include the other, and not necessarily change the existing
beliefs that more often remain in conflict, just the approach to managing this diversity or conflict.

I appreciate the fact you already come here with the
understanding there is a higher way to approach people despite conflicting beliefs.
And yes, that it is more powerful than the coercive means used to try to destroy and control others to dominate.

I like the language you use to describe this,
and hope you will continue to influence and share with others
so more people can get used to seeing how this
approach works in practice.

I agree with you that the influence rubs off on others,
and changes how we do things. And in return other
people teach and influence us, to learn how to manage
more people coming from those diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
So the gain is mutual and we grow toward a more
inclusive and respectful environment, where it is safer to
talk through issues and resolve them diplomatically, by free and informed choice
and not relying so much on coercion and the domination/bullying games we see in party politics and media.

Thank you so much ding
more power to you
and may the meek rise to the top
establishing a more consistent standard
of what is possible by conflict resolution and
consensus decision making to end the need for bullying politics!

Hats off and respect to you!
Keep up what you are doing
and may your circle of influence
be multiplied infinitely and virally, locally and online, to
become the exponential change we'd like to see in the world....

Yours truly, Emily

 

[ChrisL]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

We love Emily, but she tends to write novels.

 

[ding]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.

Now you make two very good points here, ding
I like and align with how you describe objectivity as
"not having a preference for an outcome"
That is a VERY clear description, and I think this language
would be helpful in spelling out FORMAL agreements how
to deal with political beliefs and biases in public policy and process.

[Personally, I would specify the difference between
* having a bias/preference on an outcome
* letting that affect judgment, and especially imposing it through a public policy decision where other people are objecting
and DON'T have the same preference for that outcome

- just because we HAVE a preference, doesn't mean it has to be exerted with unequal influence on the final outcome affecting others
- just because we don't LET the preferences we have skew the outcome beyond what others consent to equally, given their own preferences.
doesn't mean we DON'T have a preference on the outcome and "that's why" we're able to do that.

In mediation, a successful solution tends to have these characteristics
* both sides acknowledge the final result is not the outcome they originally preferred, but at least it is equal
* they both see that between them and the other side, both sides had to stretch equally outside
of what they originally wanted and preferred, in order to give and take and wind up with something
they can both accept, that at least covers the most important issues they were concerned about and doesn't compromise that,
and that equally includes both sides interests as much as could be obtained given their differences
* they both AGREE and CHOOSE/ACCEPT this outcome freely by knowing it is the best and fairest that could be done,
where neither side feels the other is forcing them MORE into it any more than they are forcing the other side

So I would say we STILL keep our preferences on the outcome, and still prefer something else.
But we recognize the other people involved are having to adjust equally on THEIR side,
and we BOTH agree not to let that stand in the way of working and including
what the OTHER people ALSO prefer as the outcome, equally as our own preferences.

I see this with prolife arguments.
Just because someone is prolife, and PREFERS to have laws that FAVOR prolife,
doesn't mean that has to affect their judgment and agreement by principle
to put Constitutional religious freedom principles first, and accommodate the beliefs of other people
who DON'T share and favor/prefer those same beliefs/bias toward prolife.

that doesn't change the fact those people STILL have a preference for prolife beliefs and bias in the outcomes.]

As for the second point you made, this also rings true with me:
the point about emulating others.

I agree that we raise the standards by examples we set.
If we show the mediation works and consensus/inclusion is possible,
it starts being a choice in people's minds to work toward or at least try for where possible.

right now, if all people see is bullying and coercion to get anywhere
"because the two sides of a conflict are not going to change,
and that's they only way to get anything done or passed at all"
then that's what they keep resorting to and rewarding.

I find this trend very disturbing.

Not only does it negate the Constitutional concepts and principles that
laws and democratic process should respect and protect individual rights of all people equally
ie "equal protection of the laws" and "equal justice under law"

but it sends mixed signals, and makes it harder to enforce a consistent standard:
on one hand we are telling kids NOT to bully in schools,
NOT to harass and discriminate against people who are "different"
but then we see our own national and party leaders
actively and verbally demonize and blame "people of the other affiliation or group/party"
as the ENEMY. And we fight to EXCLUDE and dominate over those views in order to defend our own?

Very conflicting message and approach,
and one I do not find to be sustainable but destructive
and not respectful of equal and inclusive relatìonships.

Mutual respect is key; where people go into arguments already "seeing the other person as representing a group they want to attack exclude and put down", if both sides do that, they won't get anywhere but just attack and defend. Our best bet is addressing each other "one on one" where there is a chance to get away from the fear that a whole other group is out to oppress us.
if we can hear what each other is saying, is concerned about and trying to address,
we can apply that to the larger groups and communicate across barriers of perception
keeping them at odds with each other. change occurs on the "molecular level" and usually
in tandem where two individuals from different viewpoints equally influence each other
to understand where the other is coming from instead of just rejecting and competing.
Because the dynamic is mutual, it is not a matter of one side forcing the other to change,
but both expand their process to include the other, and not necessarily change the existing
beliefs that more often remain in conflict, just the approach to managing this diversity or conflict.

I appreciate the fact you already come here with the
understanding there is a higher way to approach people despite conflicting beliefs.
And yes, that it is more powerful than the coercive means used to try to destroy and control others to dominate.

I like the language you use to describe this,
and hope you will continue to influence and share with others
so more people can get used to seeing how this
approach works in practice.

I agree with you that the influence rubs off on others,
and changes how we do things. And in return other
people teach and influence us, to learn how to manage
more people coming from those diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
So the gain is mutual and we grow toward a more
inclusive and respectful environment, where it is safer to
talk through issues and resolve them diplomatically, by free and informed choice
and not relying so much on coercion and the domination/bullying games we see in party politics and media.

Thank you so much ding
more power to you
and may the meek rise to the top
establishing a more consistent standard
of what is possible by conflict resolution and
consensus decision making to end the need for bullying politics!

Hats off and respect to you!
Keep up what you are doing
and may your circle of influence
be multiplied infinitely and virally, locally and online, to
become the exponential change we'd like to see in the world....

Yours truly, Emily

Thank you Emily, I enjoyed reading your post very much. I agree with many of the things you have written. Here is another idea for you to consider....

virtue is the ultimate organizing principle.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.

Now you make two very good points here, ding
I like and align with how you describe objectivity as
"not having a preference for an outcome"
That is a VERY clear description, and I think this language
would be helpful in spelling out FORMAL agreements how
to deal with political beliefs and biases in public policy and process.

[Personally, I would specify the difference between
* having a bias/preference on an outcome
* letting that affect judgment, and especially imposing it through a public policy decision where other people are objecting
and DON'T have the same preference for that outcome

- just because we HAVE a preference, doesn't mean it has to be exerted with unequal influence on the final outcome affecting others
- just because we don't LET the preferences we have skew the outcome beyond what others consent to equally, given their own preferences.
doesn't mean we DON'T have a preference on the outcome and "that's why" we're able to do that.

In mediation, a successful solution tends to have these characteristics
* both sides acknowledge the final result is not the outcome they originally preferred, but at least it is equal
* they both see that between them and the other side, both sides had to stretch equally outside
of what they originally wanted and preferred, in order to give and take and wind up with something
they can both accept, that at least covers the most important issues they were concerned about and doesn't compromise that,
and that equally includes both sides interests as much as could be obtained given their differences
* they both AGREE and CHOOSE/ACCEPT this outcome freely by knowing it is the best and fairest that could be done,
where neither side feels the other is forcing them MORE into it any more than they are forcing the other side

So I would say we STILL keep our preferences on the outcome, and still prefer something else.
But we recognize the other people involved are having to adjust equally on THEIR side,
and we BOTH agree not to let that stand in the way of working and including
what the OTHER people ALSO prefer as the outcome, equally as our own preferences.

I see this with prolife arguments.
Just because someone is prolife, and PREFERS to have laws that FAVOR prolife,
doesn't mean that has to affect their judgment and agreement by principle
to put Constitutional religious freedom principles first, and accommodate the beliefs of other people
who DON'T share and favor/prefer those same beliefs/bias toward prolife.

that doesn't change the fact those people STILL have a preference for prolife beliefs and bias in the outcomes.]

As for the second point you made, this also rings true with me:
the point about emulating others.

I agree that we raise the standards by examples we set.
If we show the mediation works and consensus/inclusion is possible,
it starts being a choice in people's minds to work toward or at least try for where possible.

right now, if all people see is bullying and coercion to get anywhere
"because the two sides of a conflict are not going to change,
and that's they only way to get anything done or passed at all"
then that's what they keep resorting to and rewarding.

I find this trend very disturbing.

Not only does it negate the Constitutional concepts and principles that
laws and democratic process should respect and protect individual rights of all people equally
ie "equal protection of the laws" and "equal justice under law"

but it sends mixed signals, and makes it harder to enforce a consistent standard:
on one hand we are telling kids NOT to bully in schools,
NOT to harass and discriminate against people who are "different"
but then we see our own national and party leaders
actively and verbally demonize and blame "people of the other affiliation or group/party"
as the ENEMY. And we fight to EXCLUDE and dominate over those views in order to defend our own?

Very conflicting message and approach,
and one I do not find to be sustainable but destructive
and not respectful of equal and inclusive relatìonships.

Mutual respect is key; where people go into arguments already "seeing the other person as representing a group they want to attack exclude and put down", if both sides do that, they won't get anywhere but just attack and defend. Our best bet is addressing each other "one on one" where there is a chance to get away from the fear that a whole other group is out to oppress us.
if we can hear what each other is saying, is concerned about and trying to address,
we can apply that to the larger groups and communicate across barriers of perception
keeping them at odds with each other. change occurs on the "molecular level" and usually
in tandem where two individuals from different viewpoints equally influence each other
to understand where the other is coming from instead of just rejecting and competing.
Because the dynamic is mutual, it is not a matter of one side forcing the other to change,
but both expand their process to include the other, and not necessarily change the existing
beliefs that more often remain in conflict, just the approach to managing this diversity or conflict.

I appreciate the fact you already come here with the
understanding there is a higher way to approach people despite conflicting beliefs.
And yes, that it is more powerful than the coercive means used to try to destroy and control others to dominate.

I like the language you use to describe this,
and hope you will continue to influence and share with others
so more people can get used to seeing how this
approach works in practice.

I agree with you that the influence rubs off on others,
and changes how we do things. And in return other
people teach and influence us, to learn how to manage
more people coming from those diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
So the gain is mutual and we grow toward a more
inclusive and respectful environment, where it is safer to
talk through issues and resolve them diplomatically, by free and informed choice
and not relying so much on coercion and the domination/bullying games we see in party politics and media.

Thank you so much ding
more power to you
and may the meek rise to the top
establishing a more consistent standard
of what is possible by conflict resolution and
consensus decision making to end the need for bullying politics!

Hats off and respect to you!
Keep up what you are doing
and may your circle of influence
be multiplied infinitely and virally, locally and online, to
become the exponential change we'd like to see in the world....

Yours truly, Emily

Thank you Emily, I enjoyed reading your post very much. I agree with many of the things you have written. Here is another idea for you to consider....

virtue is the ultimate organizing principle.

Okay ding I think you hit on the secular equivalent
of the Biblical scripture:
The greatest of all is Charity/Love.

There are many translations/variations, and the
more specific meaning of the word Love in this context is Charity.

Love is one of the names of God,
but so is Wisdom and Justice (which I equate with the secular
name for Jesus or Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice / Justice with Mercy / Peace and Justice)

Virtue reminds me of the Confucian Trinity
* Jen as the Greatest Virtue or Benevolence
* Yi as the Highest Principles embodied in man
* Li as the Outward Expression of Moral Standards in Conduct

you and I could probably go on and on, about translating
the equivalents of these principles in this system or that one.

How the 5 principles in Confucianism might parallel with the
Cardinal Virtues in Catholicism or the Precepts in Buddhism.
(I already show the parallels between the 4 noble truths in
Buddhism and the 4 spiritual laws in Christianity, how one
begs the questions and the other symbolizes the answers.
And the 3 Refuges compared with the Holy Trinity, and
the 2 core principles of Wisdom and Compassion compared
with the Two Great Commandments upon which all laws
and prophets/teachings are based)

I believe if we can align our "language" for these universal principles,
we'd find each person or system translates them slightly differently,
but the "relationship" between the three levels is still supposed to lead to harmony.

So the goal is the same even if we focus and frame the questions
and answers in different contexts and terms. Again, about the
whole being greater than the sum of the parts, if we take the
collective of all these systems together, we cover all the truth
out there we can possibly capture in human words and perceptions.

Each system serves to address certain situations and audiences,
and together, the synergy between them covers all levels and ground.

If we fear each other's groups and our differences in priorities,
and fear we cannot resolve our conflicts, we lose out.

Learning to coordinate between the different groups with different
focus and tasks is like an Orchestra, where we not only have to
distinguish who belongs in the trumpets or the woodwinds, and
what instrument and key each person plays in, but help each
musician and section to play their parts in tune, in time and in harmony/balance
with what everyone else is playing. We are all different for a reason,
and these are all necessary to the whole.

I hope we can learn to sing together, and help each other to succeed
in whatever role or purpose we add to this whole universe, for the betterment of humanity.

With the internet and the interaction of groups from all over,
our learning curve should be exponentiated. Both the very best
and very worst comes out, but that's all part of the process.

Thanks again for being here, keep posting more threads.
Thanks especially for keeping it short, and I certainly hope your
influence rubs off on me. For the sake of everyone else here!

Hugs and smiles
Yours truly, Emily

 

[ding]

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.

Now you make two very good points here, ding
I like and align with how you describe objectivity as
"not having a preference for an outcome"
That is a VERY clear description, and I think this language
would be helpful in spelling out FORMAL agreements how
to deal with political beliefs and biases in public policy and process.

[Personally, I would specify the difference between
* having a bias/preference on an outcome
* letting that affect judgment, and especially imposing it through a public policy decision where other people are objecting
and DON'T have the same preference for that outcome

- just because we HAVE a preference, doesn't mean it has to be exerted with unequal influence on the final outcome affecting others
- just because we don't LET the preferences we have skew the outcome beyond what others consent to equally, given their own preferences.
doesn't mean we DON'T have a preference on the outcome and "that's why" we're able to do that.

In mediation, a successful solution tends to have these characteristics
* both sides acknowledge the final result is not the outcome they originally preferred, but at least it is equal
* they both see that between them and the other side, both sides had to stretch equally outside
of what they originally wanted and preferred, in order to give and take and wind up with something
they can both accept, that at least covers the most important issues they were concerned about and doesn't compromise that,
and that equally includes both sides interests as much as could be obtained given their differences
* they both AGREE and CHOOSE/ACCEPT this outcome freely by knowing it is the best and fairest that could be done,
where neither side feels the other is forcing them MORE into it any more than they are forcing the other side

So I would say we STILL keep our preferences on the outcome, and still prefer something else.
But we recognize the other people involved are having to adjust equally on THEIR side,
and we BOTH agree not to let that stand in the way of working and including
what the OTHER people ALSO prefer as the outcome, equally as our own preferences.

I see this with prolife arguments.
Just because someone is prolife, and PREFERS to have laws that FAVOR prolife,
doesn't mean that has to affect their judgment and agreement by principle
to put Constitutional religious freedom principles first, and accommodate the beliefs of other people
who DON'T share and favor/prefer those same beliefs/bias toward prolife.

that doesn't change the fact those people STILL have a preference for prolife beliefs and bias in the outcomes.]

As for the second point you made, this also rings true with me:
the point about emulating others.

I agree that we raise the standards by examples we set.
If we show the mediation works and consensus/inclusion is possible,
it starts being a choice in people's minds to work toward or at least try for where possible.

right now, if all people see is bullying and coercion to get anywhere
"because the two sides of a conflict are not going to change,
and that's they only way to get anything done or passed at all"
then that's what they keep resorting to and rewarding.

I find this trend very disturbing.

Not only does it negate the Constitutional concepts and principles that
laws and democratic process should respect and protect individual rights of all people equally
ie "equal protection of the laws" and "equal justice under law"

but it sends mixed signals, and makes it harder to enforce a consistent standard:
on one hand we are telling kids NOT to bully in schools,
NOT to harass and discriminate against people who are "different"
but then we see our own national and party leaders
actively and verbally demonize and blame "people of the other affiliation or group/party"
as the ENEMY. And we fight to EXCLUDE and dominate over those views in order to defend our own?

Very conflicting message and approach,
and one I do not find to be sustainable but destructive
and not respectful of equal and inclusive relatìonships.

Mutual respect is key; where people go into arguments already "seeing the other person as representing a group they want to attack exclude and put down", if both sides do that, they won't get anywhere but just attack and defend. Our best bet is addressing each other "one on one" where there is a chance to get away from the fear that a whole other group is out to oppress us.
if we can hear what each other is saying, is concerned about and trying to address,
we can apply that to the larger groups and communicate across barriers of perception
keeping them at odds with each other. change occurs on the "molecular level" and usually
in tandem where two individuals from different viewpoints equally influence each other
to understand where the other is coming from instead of just rejecting and competing.
Because the dynamic is mutual, it is not a matter of one side forcing the other to change,
but both expand their process to include the other, and not necessarily change the existing
beliefs that more often remain in conflict, just the approach to managing this diversity or conflict.

I appreciate the fact you already come here with the
understanding there is a higher way to approach people despite conflicting beliefs.
And yes, that it is more powerful than the coercive means used to try to destroy and control others to dominate.

I like the language you use to describe this,
and hope you will continue to influence and share with others
so more people can get used to seeing how this
approach works in practice.

I agree with you that the influence rubs off on others,
and changes how we do things. And in return other
people teach and influence us, to learn how to manage
more people coming from those diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
So the gain is mutual and we grow toward a more
inclusive and respectful environment, where it is safer to
talk through issues and resolve them diplomatically, by free and informed choice
and not relying so much on coercion and the domination/bullying games we see in party politics and media.

Thank you so much ding
more power to you
and may the meek rise to the top
establishing a more consistent standard
of what is possible by conflict resolution and
consensus decision making to end the need for bullying politics!

Hats off and respect to you!
Keep up what you are doing
and may your circle of influence
be multiplied infinitely and virally, locally and online, to
become the exponential change we'd like to see in the world....

Yours truly, Emily

Thank you Emily, I enjoyed reading your post very much. I agree with many of the things you have written. Here is another idea for you to consider....

virtue is the ultimate organizing principle.

Okay ding I think you hit on the secular equivalent
of the Biblical scripture:
The greatest of all is Charity/Love.

There are many translations/variations, and the
more specific meaning of the word Love in this context is Charity.

Love is one of the names of God,
but so is Wisdom and Justice (which I equate with the secular
name for Jesus or Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice / Justice with Mercy / Peace and Justice)

Virtue reminds me of the Confucian Trinity
* Jen as the Greatest Virtue or Benevolence
* Yi as the Highest Principles embodied in man
* Li as the Outward Expression of Moral Standards in Conduct

you and I could probably go on and on, about translating
the equivalents of these principles in this system or that one.

How the 5 principles in Confucianism might parallel with the
Cardinal Virtues in Catholicism or the Precepts in Buddhism.
(I already show the parallels between the 4 noble truths in
Buddhism and the 4 spiritual laws in Christianity, how one
begs the questions and the other symbolizes the answers.
And the 3 Refuges compared with the Holy Trinity, and
the 2 core principles of Wisdom and Compassion compared
with the Two Great Commandments upon which all laws
and prophets/teachings are based)

I believe if we can align our "language" for these universal principles,
we'd find each person or system translates them slightly differently,
but the "relationship" between the three levels is still supposed to lead to harmony.

So the goal is the same even if we focus and frame the questions
and answers in different contexts and terms. Again, about the
whole being greater than the sum of the parts, if we take the
collective of all these systems together, we cover all the truth
out there we can possibly capture in human words and perceptions.

Each system serves to address certain situations and audiences,
and together, the synergy between them covers all levels and ground.

If we fear each other's groups and our differences in priorities,
and fear we cannot resolve our conflicts, we lose out.

Learning to coordinate between the different groups with different
focus and tasks is like an Orchestra, where we not only have to
distinguish who belongs in the trumpets or the woodwinds, and
what instrument and key each person plays in, but help each
musician and section to play their parts in tune, in time and in harmony/balance
with what everyone else is playing. We are all different for a reason,
and these are all necessary to the whole.

I hope we can learn to sing together, and help each other to succeed
in whatever role or purpose we add to this whole universe, for the betterment of humanity.

With the internet and the interaction of groups from all over,
our learning curve should be exponentiated. Both the very best
and very worst comes out, but that's all part of the process.

Thanks again for being here, keep posting more threads.
Thanks especially for keeping it short, and I certainly hope your
influence rubs off on me. For the sake of everyone else here!

Hugs and smiles
Yours truly, Emily

I could not possibly agree more. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two caring people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two thoughtful people will always have a better relationship than two thoughtless people. And on and on and on. Not some of the time. All of the time.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.

Now you make two very good points here, ding
I like and align with how you describe objectivity as
"not having a preference for an outcome"
That is a VERY clear description, and I think this language
would be helpful in spelling out FORMAL agreements how
to deal with political beliefs and biases in public policy and process.

[Personally, I would specify the difference between
* having a bias/preference on an outcome
* letting that affect judgment, and especially imposing it through a public policy decision where other people are objecting
and DON'T have the same preference for that outcome

- just because we HAVE a preference, doesn't mean it has to be exerted with unequal influence on the final outcome affecting others
- just because we don't LET the preferences we have skew the outcome beyond what others consent to equally, given their own preferences.
doesn't mean we DON'T have a preference on the outcome and "that's why" we're able to do that.

In mediation, a successful solution tends to have these characteristics
* both sides acknowledge the final result is not the outcome they originally preferred, but at least it is equal
* they both see that between them and the other side, both sides had to stretch equally outside
of what they originally wanted and preferred, in order to give and take and wind up with something
they can both accept, that at least covers the most important issues they were concerned about and doesn't compromise that,
and that equally includes both sides interests as much as could be obtained given their differences
* they both AGREE and CHOOSE/ACCEPT this outcome freely by knowing it is the best and fairest that could be done,
where neither side feels the other is forcing them MORE into it any more than they are forcing the other side

So I would say we STILL keep our preferences on the outcome, and still prefer something else.
But we recognize the other people involved are having to adjust equally on THEIR side,
and we BOTH agree not to let that stand in the way of working and including
what the OTHER people ALSO prefer as the outcome, equally as our own preferences.

I see this with prolife arguments.
Just because someone is prolife, and PREFERS to have laws that FAVOR prolife,
doesn't mean that has to affect their judgment and agreement by principle
to put Constitutional religious freedom principles first, and accommodate the beliefs of other people
who DON'T share and favor/prefer those same beliefs/bias toward prolife.

that doesn't change the fact those people STILL have a preference for prolife beliefs and bias in the outcomes.]

As for the second point you made, this also rings true with me:
the point about emulating others.

I agree that we raise the standards by examples we set.
If we show the mediation works and consensus/inclusion is possible,
it starts being a choice in people's minds to work toward or at least try for where possible.

right now, if all people see is bullying and coercion to get anywhere
"because the two sides of a conflict are not going to change,
and that's they only way to get anything done or passed at all"
then that's what they keep resorting to and rewarding.

I find this trend very disturbing.

Not only does it negate the Constitutional concepts and principles that
laws and democratic process should respect and protect individual rights of all people equally
ie "equal protection of the laws" and "equal justice under law"

but it sends mixed signals, and makes it harder to enforce a consistent standard:
on one hand we are telling kids NOT to bully in schools,
NOT to harass and discriminate against people who are "different"
but then we see our own national and party leaders
actively and verbally demonize and blame "people of the other affiliation or group/party"
as the ENEMY. And we fight to EXCLUDE and dominate over those views in order to defend our own?

Very conflicting message and approach,
and one I do not find to be sustainable but destructive
and not respectful of equal and inclusive relatìonships.

Mutual respect is key; where people go into arguments already "seeing the other person as representing a group they want to attack exclude and put down", if both sides do that, they won't get anywhere but just attack and defend. Our best bet is addressing each other "one on one" where there is a chance to get away from the fear that a whole other group is out to oppress us.
if we can hear what each other is saying, is concerned about and trying to address,
we can apply that to the larger groups and communicate across barriers of perception
keeping them at odds with each other. change occurs on the "molecular level" and usually
in tandem where two individuals from different viewpoints equally influence each other
to understand where the other is coming from instead of just rejecting and competing.
Because the dynamic is mutual, it is not a matter of one side forcing the other to change,
but both expand their process to include the other, and not necessarily change the existing
beliefs that more often remain in conflict, just the approach to managing this diversity or conflict.

I appreciate the fact you already come here with the
understanding there is a higher way to approach people despite conflicting beliefs.
And yes, that it is more powerful than the coercive means used to try to destroy and control others to dominate.

I like the language you use to describe this,
and hope you will continue to influence and share with others
so more people can get used to seeing how this
approach works in practice.

I agree with you that the influence rubs off on others,
and changes how we do things. And in return other
people teach and influence us, to learn how to manage
more people coming from those diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
So the gain is mutual and we grow toward a more
inclusive and respectful environment, where it is safer to
talk through issues and resolve them diplomatically, by free and informed choice
and not relying so much on coercion and the domination/bullying games we see in party politics and media.

Thank you so much ding
more power to you
and may the meek rise to the top
establishing a more consistent standard
of what is possible by conflict resolution and
consensus decision making to end the need for bullying politics!

Hats off and respect to you!
Keep up what you are doing
and may your circle of influence
be multiplied infinitely and virally, locally and online, to
become the exponential change we'd like to see in the world....

Yours truly, Emily

Thank you Emily, I enjoyed reading your post very much. I agree with many of the things you have written. Here is another idea for you to consider....

virtue is the ultimate organizing principle.

Okay ding I think you hit on the secular equivalent
of the Biblical scripture:
The greatest of all is Charity/Love.

There are many translations/variations, and the
more specific meaning of the word Love in this context is Charity.

Love is one of the names of God,
but so is Wisdom and Justice (which I equate with the secular
name for Jesus or Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice / Justice with Mercy / Peace and Justice)

Virtue reminds me of the Confucian Trinity
* Jen as the Greatest Virtue or Benevolence
* Yi as the Highest Principles embodied in man
* Li as the Outward Expression of Moral Standards in Conduct

you and I could probably go on and on, about translating
the equivalents of these principles in this system or that one.

How the 5 principles in Confucianism might parallel with the
Cardinal Virtues in Catholicism or the Precepts in Buddhism.
(I already show the parallels between the 4 noble truths in
Buddhism and the 4 spiritual laws in Christianity, how one
begs the questions and the other symbolizes the answers.
And the 3 Refuges compared with the Holy Trinity, and
the 2 core principles of Wisdom and Compassion compared
with the Two Great Commandments upon which all laws
and prophets/teachings are based)

I believe if we can align our "language" for these universal principles,
we'd find each person or system translates them slightly differently,
but the "relationship" between the three levels is still supposed to lead to harmony.

So the goal is the same even if we focus and frame the questions
and answers in different contexts and terms. Again, about the
whole being greater than the sum of the parts, if we take the
collective of all these systems together, we cover all the truth
out there we can possibly capture in human words and perceptions.

Each system serves to address certain situations and audiences,
and together, the synergy between them covers all levels and ground.

If we fear each other's groups and our differences in priorities,
and fear we cannot resolve our conflicts, we lose out.

Learning to coordinate between the different groups with different
focus and tasks is like an Orchestra, where we not only have to
distinguish who belongs in the trumpets or the woodwinds, and
what instrument and key each person plays in, but help each
musician and section to play their parts in tune, in time and in harmony/balance
with what everyone else is playing. We are all different for a reason,
and these are all necessary to the whole.

I hope we can learn to sing together, and help each other to succeed
in whatever role or purpose we add to this whole universe, for the betterment of humanity.

With the internet and the interaction of groups from all over,
our learning curve should be exponentiated. Both the very best
and very worst comes out, but that's all part of the process.

Thanks again for being here, keep posting more threads.
Thanks especially for keeping it short, and I certainly hope your
influence rubs off on me. For the sake of everyone else here!

Hugs and smiles
Yours truly, Emily

I could not possibly agree more. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two caring people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two thoughtful people will always have a better relationship than two thoughtless people. And on and on and on. Not some of the time. All of the time.

Thanks ding
what I usually run into with people
is each person has strengths in some areas, and fall short in others.
So the two people help each other lift up the good parts, bring out the best sides,
but also address the worst faults that also come out.

I can be thoughtful in some areas but a total DOOF in others and miss the obvious!
So with each person, we bring out our opposites and learn how to use that.
If I can learn to be "more like you" in areas where I NEED to be "more like that"
then I follow your example and "emulate" you. And vice versa.

The beauty is that it tends to be an even trade out of swapping strengths for weaknesses on both sides.
and I must say again, as you said, there is a GREATER benefit in this "even exchange"
where both people come out AHEAD. so by the math of life, the debts become bigger surpluses.
There is expansion and multiplication, like the bread and fishes feeding the multitude.

We need to stop this right now.
If you and I keep on with this, this will bring on the second coming
the final rapture, and I don't think the planet is quite ready.

I have laundry to do and my hair is a mess.
Not ready for the Kingdom of God.

Please stop here, if you keep going,
there's only one place this is going to lead.

Are you sure the world is ready?
For two of us? In agreement, do you know what's going to happen
when that aligns and escalates?

C'mon at least post some things where we can disagree
and start projecting emotionally "just a little bit" like everyone else.

We can't agree on everything, that's going to lead to mass consensus.
And as everyone else has preached to me on here, "that's not possible
in our lifetime".

Is it fair for you and I to be right, that people can resolve differences
and reach harmonious agreements? and make so many other people wrong?
What kind of math is this? I thought majority ruled!

ha ha, keep posting ding, and we'll see the revolution come in, of peace and justice made manifest,
that is overdue on our timeclock but not scheduled on a lot of people's calendars....

 

[Yarddog]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

We love Emily, but she tends to write novels.

And I expect you to have a report on each one on my desk by Tuesday, Chris. No fair using Clif notes !

 

[ChrisL]

Hey Everyone,

My name is ding and I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

We love Emily, but she tends to write novels.

And I expect you to have a report on each one on my desk by Tuesday, Chris. No fair using Clif notes !

I'll need more time then!

 

[Yarddog]

Dear ding Not sure if honesty is the word to describe the people who can respect each other's beliefs and differences.
I find it is a factor of fear and unforgiveness being projected, where people with "scarcity mentality" resort to bullying by exclusion or coercion to defend themselves,
vs. faith that truth is the controlling force and exercise forgiveness and inclusion when dealing with people and different groups/beliefs

When people have faith that truth and justice prevail without needing to resort to force, bullying, abuse coercion oppression etc.
sure
that opens the door to people "feeling safe" to express themselves freely openly and honestly.

The link betwe en the two
is if people aren't fully aware of the fears and unforgiven issues behind their biases
then they project emotionally and don't include all others equally.

It's the fear and forgiveness factor that makes all the difference in the world.

If people are in denial, it's usually because they are afraid of someone or something
and not ready to face changing or confronting that issue.

You can be as honest as you can about this,
and if you are still not ready to forgive and receive change,
then it blocks and limits the interaction with others.

As long as you are forgiving and willing to work with others,
then even if you fall short in some areas, and aren't perfectly transparent open and honest,
you can still work with others, to the same extent they are willing to work with you,
as long as you both allow each other the same
room for error and benefit of the doubt.

Overall I would agree that intellectual honesty
and awareness/understanding
goes hand in hand with being able to forgive and include other people regardless of
differences and conflicting beliefs.

But I find it's the forgiveness factor vs the fear factor
that determines if people can interact inclusively and safely with each other.
Once the scarcity mentality, the competitive/combative defensiveness kicks in,
it's very hard to work through that and try to get to a safe place of mutual agreement and respect.
But that's part of the process also.

We all have to learn to navigate and manage this process
in order to rebuild working relationships, restore communities
and society, and create more effective sustainable solutions by collaborating
to capitalize on the best ideas, talents, models, and leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors.

Whatever is standing in the way of that,
we need to work through anyway.
There are no shortcuts.
Nobody can do the work and fix our problems for us.
It will take all of us working together, delegating
different areas to different people and groups,
to solve all the world's problems with the given resources we have to work with.

Thanks for being here and sharing
and I hope you will see that your
participation and influence makes a difference.

Everyone here is a necessary piece of the puzzle
or else we wouldn't be here! Enjoy!

Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.

Well ding to be "honest" with you
I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
Nobody is that perfect.

What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To be made perfect means to be made whole.
When you add all humanity together,
then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

But not one of us can do it alone.
When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.

We love Emily, but she tends to write novels.

And I expect you to have a report on each one on my desk by Tuesday, Chris. No fair using Clif notes !

I'll need more time then!

More time? I just didn't want you to fall behind seeing as Emily is so prolific. The mysteries of civization and the universe are about to fall, i just need the translation. Please hurry Chris ! and ahhh, please wear one of your sexy outfits when you bring the reports.

 

[ding]

Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.

Now you make two very good points here, ding
I like and align with how you describe objectivity as
"not having a preference for an outcome"
That is a VERY clear description, and I think this language
would be helpful in spelling out FORMAL agreements how
to deal with political beliefs and biases in public policy and process.

[Personally, I would specify the difference between
* having a bias/preference on an outcome
* letting that affect judgment, and especially imposing it through a public policy decision where other people are objecting
and DON'T have the same preference for that outcome

- just because we HAVE a preference, doesn't mean it has to be exerted with unequal influence on the final outcome affecting others
- just because we don't LET the preferences we have skew the outcome beyond what others consent to equally, given their own preferences.
doesn't mean we DON'T have a preference on the outcome and "that's why" we're able to do that.

In mediation, a successful solution tends to have these characteristics
* both sides acknowledge the final result is not the outcome they originally preferred, but at least it is equal
* they both see that between them and the other side, both sides had to stretch equally outside
of what they originally wanted and preferred, in order to give and take and wind up with something
they can both accept, that at least covers the most important issues they were concerned about and doesn't compromise that,
and that equally includes both sides interests as much as could be obtained given their differences
* they both AGREE and CHOOSE/ACCEPT this outcome freely by knowing it is the best and fairest that could be done,
where neither side feels the other is forcing them MORE into it any more than they are forcing the other side

So I would say we STILL keep our preferences on the outcome, and still prefer something else.
But we recognize the other people involved are having to adjust equally on THEIR side,
and we BOTH agree not to let that stand in the way of working and including
what the OTHER people ALSO prefer as the outcome, equally as our own preferences.

I see this with prolife arguments.
Just because someone is prolife, and PREFERS to have laws that FAVOR prolife,
doesn't mean that has to affect their judgment and agreement by principle
to put Constitutional religious freedom principles first, and accommodate the beliefs of other people
who DON'T share and favor/prefer those same beliefs/bias toward prolife.

that doesn't change the fact those people STILL have a preference for prolife beliefs and bias in the outcomes.]

As for the second point you made, this also rings true with me:
the point about emulating others.

I agree that we raise the standards by examples we set.
If we show the mediation works and consensus/inclusion is possible,
it starts being a choice in people's minds to work toward or at least try for where possible.

right now, if all people see is bullying and coercion to get anywhere
"because the two sides of a conflict are not going to change,
and that's they only way to get anything done or passed at all"
then that's what they keep resorting to and rewarding.

I find this trend very disturbing.

Not only does it negate the Constitutional concepts and principles that
laws and democratic process should respect and protect individual rights of all people equally
ie "equal protection of the laws" and "equal justice under law"

but it sends mixed signals, and makes it harder to enforce a consistent standard:
on one hand we are telling kids NOT to bully in schools,
NOT to harass and discriminate against people who are "different"
but then we see our own national and party leaders
actively and verbally demonize and blame "people of the other affiliation or group/party"
as the ENEMY. And we fight to EXCLUDE and dominate over those views in order to defend our own?

Very conflicting message and approach,
and one I do not find to be sustainable but destructive
and not respectful of equal and inclusive relatìonships.

Mutual respect is key; where people go into arguments already "seeing the other person as representing a group they want to attack exclude and put down", if both sides do that, they won't get anywhere but just attack and defend. Our best bet is addressing each other "one on one" where there is a chance to get away from the fear that a whole other group is out to oppress us.
if we can hear what each other is saying, is concerned about and trying to address,
we can apply that to the larger groups and communicate across barriers of perception
keeping them at odds with each other. change occurs on the "molecular level" and usually
in tandem where two individuals from different viewpoints equally influence each other
to understand where the other is coming from instead of just rejecting and competing.
Because the dynamic is mutual, it is not a matter of one side forcing the other to change,
but both expand their process to include the other, and not necessarily change the existing
beliefs that more often remain in conflict, just the approach to managing this diversity or conflict.

I appreciate the fact you already come here with the
understanding there is a higher way to approach people despite conflicting beliefs.
And yes, that it is more powerful than the coercive means used to try to destroy and control others to dominate.

I like the language you use to describe this,
and hope you will continue to influence and share with others
so more people can get used to seeing how this
approach works in practice.

I agree with you that the influence rubs off on others,
and changes how we do things. And in return other
people teach and influence us, to learn how to manage
more people coming from those diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
So the gain is mutual and we grow toward a more
inclusive and respectful environment, where it is safer to
talk through issues and resolve them diplomatically, by free and informed choice
and not relying so much on coercion and the domination/bullying games we see in party politics and media.

Thank you so much ding
more power to you
and may the meek rise to the top
establishing a more consistent standard
of what is possible by conflict resolution and
consensus decision making to end the need for bullying politics!

Hats off and respect to you!
Keep up what you are doing
and may your circle of influence
be multiplied infinitely and virally, locally and online, to
become the exponential change we'd like to see in the world....

Yours truly, Emily

Thank you Emily, I enjoyed reading your post very much. I agree with many of the things you have written. Here is another idea for you to consider....

virtue is the ultimate organizing principle.

Okay ding I think you hit on the secular equivalent
of the Biblical scripture:
The greatest of all is Charity/Love.

There are many translations/variations, and the
more specific meaning of the word Love in this context is Charity.

Love is one of the names of God,
but so is Wisdom and Justice (which I equate with the secular
name for Jesus or Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice / Justice with Mercy / Peace and Justice)

Virtue reminds me of the Confucian Trinity
* Jen as the Greatest Virtue or Benevolence
* Yi as the Highest Principles embodied in man
* Li as the Outward Expression of Moral Standards in Conduct

you and I could probably go on and on, about translating
the equivalents of these principles in this system or that one.

How the 5 principles in Confucianism might parallel with the
Cardinal Virtues in Catholicism or the Precepts in Buddhism.
(I already show the parallels between the 4 noble truths in
Buddhism and the 4 spiritual laws in Christianity, how one
begs the questions and the other symbolizes the answers.
And the 3 Refuges compared with the Holy Trinity, and
the 2 core principles of Wisdom and Compassion compared
with the Two Great Commandments upon which all laws
and prophets/teachings are based)

I believe if we can align our "language" for these universal principles,
we'd find each person or system translates them slightly differently,
but the "relationship" between the three levels is still supposed to lead to harmony.

So the goal is the same even if we focus and frame the questions
and answers in different contexts and terms. Again, about the
whole being greater than the sum of the parts, if we take the
collective of all these systems together, we cover all the truth
out there we can possibly capture in human words and perceptions.

Each system serves to address certain situations and audiences,
and together, the synergy between them covers all levels and ground.

If we fear each other's groups and our differences in priorities,
and fear we cannot resolve our conflicts, we lose out.

Learning to coordinate between the different groups with different
focus and tasks is like an Orchestra, where we not only have to
distinguish who belongs in the trumpets or the woodwinds, and
what instrument and key each person plays in, but help each
musician and section to play their parts in tune, in time and in harmony/balance
with what everyone else is playing. We are all different for a reason,
and these are all necessary to the whole.

I hope we can learn to sing together, and help each other to succeed
in whatever role or purpose we add to this whole universe, for the betterment of humanity.

With the internet and the interaction of groups from all over,
our learning curve should be exponentiated. Both the very best
and very worst comes out, but that's all part of the process.

Thanks again for being here, keep posting more threads.
Thanks especially for keeping it short, and I certainly hope your
influence rubs off on me. For the sake of everyone else here!

Hugs and smiles
Yours truly, Emily

I could not possibly agree more. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two caring people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two thoughtful people will always have a better relationship than two thoughtless people. And on and on and on. Not some of the time. All of the time.

Thanks ding
what I usually run into with people
is each person has strengths in some areas, and fall short in others.
So the two people help each other lift up the good parts, bring out the best sides,
but also address the worst faults that also come out.

I can be thoughtful in some areas but a total DOOF in others and miss the obvious!
So with each person, we bring out our opposites and learn how to use that.
If I can learn to be "more like you" in areas where I NEED to be "more like that"
then I follow your example and "emulate" you. And vice versa.

The beauty is that it tends to be an even trade out of swapping strengths for weaknesses on both sides.
and I must say again, as you said, there is a GREATER benefit in this "even exchange"
where both people come out AHEAD. so by the math of life, the debts become bigger surpluses.
There is expansion and multiplication, like the bread and fishes feeding the multitude.

We need to stop this right now.
If you and I keep on with this, this will bring on the second coming
the final rapture, and I don't think the planet is quite ready.

I have laundry to do and my hair is a mess.
Not ready for the Kingdom of God.

Please stop here, if you keep going,
there's only one place this is going to lead.

Are you sure the world is ready?
For two of us? In agreement, do you know what's going to happen
when that aligns and escalates?

C'mon at least post some things where we can disagree
and start projecting emotionally "just a little bit" like everyone else.

We can't agree on everything, that's going to lead to mass consensus.
And as everyone else has preached to me on here, "that's not possible
in our lifetime".

Is it fair for you and I to be right, that people can resolve differences
and reach harmonious agreements? and make so many other people wrong?
What kind of math is this? I thought majority ruled!

ha ha, keep posting ding, and we'll see the revolution come in, of peace and justice made manifest,
that is overdue on our timeclock but not scheduled on a lot of people's calendars....

If you are familiar with the personality tests, you might find it interesting that opposites do attract. Couples tend to select opposites because the opposite s fill a void. Hence the expression, "you complete me." Anyway, I completely agree with what you are saying. I'm a big fan of diversity.