A COMMENT, OPINION, COUNTER-ARGUMENT, OR CRITICISM, DISGUISED
AS A QUESTION
It's the "disguised as a question" component of this ploy, which makes it so pernicious, so insidious, so absent of integrity. And it's its absence of integrity which it injects into conversations for transformation, which dilutes their power and progress.
Comments expressed as comments, opinions expressed as opinions, counter-arguments expressed as counter-arguments, criticism expressed as criticism, and questions expressed as questions, have more integrity than this covert action designed to "stump the panel" in order to be right. An untransformed person (it could be you or me) would rather be right than almost anything else. He / she would rather have intelligent excuses for life not working, than actually have it work.
SOMETHING THAT COMES UP FOR A PARTICIPANT (A "YEAH BUT", "HOW
'BOUT", "WHAT IF", OR AN OPINION) THAT SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENT
WITH WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED, WHICH THE PARTICIPANT PRESENTS AS AN
INVALIDATION OF WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN THE EVENT RATHER THAN
LOOKING FOR A RESOLUTION
"Yeah but ... ?" or "How 'bout ...?" or "What if ...?" or (an opinion like) "It would be boring if life always worked" all reinforce already always preset, untransformed mindsets, which dilute the power and progress of new conversations for transformation. One way of resolving them is to simply set them aside (ie to bracket them) until the conversation for transformation is complete, then re-examine if they're still relevant, given what's now spoken newly - and if they're not, then let them go.
A "THAT'S LIKE ..." SHARE TRIGGERED BY WHAT IS PRESENTED THAT
MUDDLES THE RIGOR OF WHAT IS PRESENTED
A "That's like ..." is the calling-card (ie the dramatic announcement) of the mind entering the conversation. "That's like ..." springs from "Everything is the same as everything else ... except not always" which is the mind's logic system. Conversations for transformation come from being, not mind. They're rarely comparatives. They're generatives. Neither do they occur in the same domain as any other conversation. They speak transformation rather than speak about transformation.
Any comparatives (ie any "that's like ..."s), are only marginally legitimate, and will invariably distract from the business at hand. The pre-transformed state in which mind is not yet distinguished from being, is ripe, naïve turf for this ploy. Look: there's nothing wrong with the pre-transformed state. It's a formative aspect of being human - of you being human, of me being human. It's when it's undistinguished, that it dilutes the power and progress of conversations for transformation.
ATTEMPTING DURING EVENT SESSIONS TO LEAD A DIFFERENT EVENT
FOR THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS, RATHER THAN TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE EVENT
AS BEING LED
With speaking transformation, comes a presence, arguably an attractive presence, the being of which can easily be mistaken for the business at hand. But the business at hand is speaking transformation, not being attractive while doing so. There are no goodies in speaking transformation except speaking transformation.
Being confused about (or just plain not dialed into) the business at hand, can lead to a misplaced notion that the work of transformation is about having a lot to say about something, rather than being about exploring a new conversational modality, inventing new possibilities (which may obliquely attract renewed attention).
Speaking transformation is the business at hand in conversations for transformation. Attempting to lead a different event during such conversations, is to dilute their power and progress. Moreover (and here's the bottom line) it's only a fool who pays good money to be in and to discover new possibilities in new conversations for transformation, then spends his time having conversations he's already familiar with (which arguably, if the truth be told, were always unsatisfying to begin with).
ATTEMPTING TO SUBSTITUTE TERMINOLOGY AND / OR THEORY FROM
ANOTHER DISCIPLINE OR EVEN ANOTHER LANDMARK PROGRAM (NO MATTER HOW
VALID), RATHER THAN STRUGGLING TO SEE HOW THE DISCIPLINE OF THIS
EVENT APPLIES AND WHAT IT MAKES AVAILABLE AS CONTRASTED WITH THE
TERMINOLOGY AND / OR THEORY FROM THAT OTHER DISCIPLINE OR EVEN
ANOTHER LANDMARK PROGRAM
If the disciplines of note got their job done in the first place, the impact of conversations for transformation would be neglible, certainly no longer state of the art.
Conversations for transformation are conversations to be in. That's where their value is realized. There's no value to be found in comparing them with other disciplines. The prudent participant recognizes the skew towards comparing conversations for transformation with other disciplines, and lets it be, without acting on it. Being able to intelligently compare conversations for transformation with other disciplines, may indicate a certain respectable, learned wisdom and knowledge, yet doesn't necessarily catalyze the onset of any new, breakthrough experience. Knowing about different paths to enlightenment, is not enough to enlighten.
Notice it's primarily our undistinguished propensity to compare (period) which dilutes conversations for transformation. It's only secondarily actually talking about that with which we make comparisons, that dilutes them.
ATTEMPTING TO VALIDATE WHAT ONE HAS TO SAY BASED ON IT LIKELY
BEING THE VIEW OF OTHERS IN THE ROOM, OR ATTEMPTING TO ENLIST
OTHERS IN THAT VIEW
In conversations for transformation, "Everyone knows ..." is a last-ditch "Hail Mary" pass of the survival-threatened. What I'm pointing to is every last single one of us (you and I) are survival-threatened now and then. While the purpose of conversations for transformation isn't to threaten survival, when ingrained belief systems are threatened (and in the face of impending transformation, almost all of ours are), it's instinctive to summon the "everyone knows" cavalry in defense of the old.
"Everyone knows ..." seeks to outnumber the presenter, the messenger, the trainer, the leader, the Werner-in-the-room (if you will), to out-vote, to out-flank the presenter, to dilute the power of his / her word, with the word of the sympathetic throng. Although this ploy is inauthentic to the core, it's automatic, and so it's a lot easier to deploy than to authentically admit "My mind is threatened by this new way of looking at things, yet I'm willing to stay open to where it may lead.".
A RANT (SOMETHING THAT COMES OUT IN AN EMOTIONALLY-CHARGED
STRING THAT IS TRIGGERED BY SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE
A rant contributes nothing - or spoken more rigorously, it actually contributes negatively by diluting (detracting from) the power and progress of conversations for transformation.
On the other hand, catching myself ranting and authentically acknowledging I ranted ("I just noticed I ranted; I apologize to the group for diluting the power and the progress (and the dignity and the integrity) of this conversation; I promise to deal with the source of my rant, indeed I'll look unflinchingly at what happened in the room just now that triggered it, and then I'll get back to you and share what I discovered about myself") makes an enormous contribution. Really.
RAMBLING ON WITHOUT MAKING ANY POINT
Simply being listened, can be powerfully seductive - that is, if being listened is ordinarily in short supply (which it isn't in conversations for transformation). And rambling on is often indicative of simply relishing ie basking in (being seduced by) the extraordinary, profound listening present in these conversations.
While conversations for transformation do indeed engender an extraordinary, profound listening, that's not their raison d'etre. So there's a great opportunity to be both considerate and responsible: either sit down and and be quiet when you catch yourself rambling, or get to the point quickly. Remember: conversations for transformation aren't the milieu for speaking about transformation: they're the milieu for speaking transformation. You've made an agreement implicit in integrity by being here, so deliver just that. Rambling on violates that agreement. It's the antithesis of speaking transformation (says Werner: it doesn't forward the action).
|Communication Promise||E-Mail | Home|
|© Laurence Platt - 2019 through 2022||Permission|