unchallenged
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:52:24 +0000
From: "Joy Lucas"
Subject: RE: online case RM/Feb.01 and rubrics etc
Hi Dave, thanks for this. I have to say that the choice of rubrics were
"qualified" by her - and as I said, right or wrong it all remains
interesting to me. What bothers me more is HOW we deconstruct other's points
of view. Perhaps you would like to present a case yourself illustrating your
methods. That would be a far better way of "challenging" don't you think.
Look forward to it. Regards, Joy
Hi Joy and Dave,
I have to say I agree with Joy on this. In our practitioners' study group,
we were having a lot of clashes because we all come from such different
backgrounds, training, and perspectives. Then we realized this diversity
could be a boon to all of us if we met it with openness and gratitude for
what we could learn from each other instead of contradicting and discounting
one anothers' ideas. Now we present cured cases to one another, to really
explain how we work, and how we acheive success. It could be looked at as a
"stone soup." (Do you all know that old fable?)
I read in high school that Darwin used to carry around a notebook to write
down opinions that differed from his own, as he knew that he'd forget them
otherwise, through the natural human tendency to dismiss the unfamiliar. As
you can see, this idea made a big impression on me, because high school was
a long time ago!
A couple of sayings my spiritual teacher used to say also stay with me: "We
have something to learn from everyone--that is the mystery of humility," and
"Differences of opinion are the sign of sentient life." By this standard,
homeopaths are an especially vital group!
Blessings and warm wishes,
Charlotte
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Challenging others' ideas
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Challenging others' ideas
Dear All,
I have been reading the posts about the affect in some of the communications. And putting my two cents in, I would like to concur with the sentiments that Charlotte wrote. I have worked in so many g'roups' in my life. Some of them were business; some of them community. Some of them struggled with hierarchical structures and others were committedly concensus based. Respect, a willingness to listen to others points of view, and a mandate to not be attacking or personally critical were always core to the success of the environment.
I'd like to share a process from another venue in my life as an example. I do a fair amount of work in my local school district, having served on many committees. Some were official school board appointments and others were community based, concerned with problems with the Board or District situations. A few years ago we had a school board that was conceptually committed to working 'with' the community. After a period of time struggling together, they also made the committment to learn to open themselves up to each other with respect and caring. That was the one period of time when there was no hostile conflict in the community with the Board. Differences--yes; but not hostility and conflict. Meetings were pleasant and people felt they could/would be heard. The superintendent hired during this period remained under the control of the Board and fulfilled the mandates given him, such that he found himself working in concensus with people whose issues had never come up for him before in a community. This was a great period of forward movement for us. Unfortunately, I think the community became complacent and before we knew it, the Board was turned over to people who admired control and power; they put in a similar superintendent; and the community is now in a conflicted turmoil.
I hope this helps put some perspective on a small problem we seem to be experiencing in this discussion group.
tanya
I have been reading the posts about the affect in some of the communications. And putting my two cents in, I would like to concur with the sentiments that Charlotte wrote. I have worked in so many g'roups' in my life. Some of them were business; some of them community. Some of them struggled with hierarchical structures and others were committedly concensus based. Respect, a willingness to listen to others points of view, and a mandate to not be attacking or personally critical were always core to the success of the environment.
I'd like to share a process from another venue in my life as an example. I do a fair amount of work in my local school district, having served on many committees. Some were official school board appointments and others were community based, concerned with problems with the Board or District situations. A few years ago we had a school board that was conceptually committed to working 'with' the community. After a period of time struggling together, they also made the committment to learn to open themselves up to each other with respect and caring. That was the one period of time when there was no hostile conflict in the community with the Board. Differences--yes; but not hostility and conflict. Meetings were pleasant and people felt they could/would be heard. The superintendent hired during this period remained under the control of the Board and fulfilled the mandates given him, such that he found himself working in concensus with people whose issues had never come up for him before in a community. This was a great period of forward movement for us. Unfortunately, I think the community became complacent and before we knew it, the Board was turned over to people who admired control and power; they put in a similar superintendent; and the community is now in a conflicted turmoil.
I hope this helps put some perspective on a small problem we seem to be experiencing in this discussion group.
tanya