Relative position

This whole blog speaks about how people process information, in the social context life provides. It  aims to give suggestions on how to be more effective, more resourceful and meanwhile enjoying the process more.

One of life’s fascinating challenges is in the matter of ‘how to express a desire for change in a group’?
It  can already be turbulent to play with ideas for change, all by yourself. Adding more people in the mix comes with a whole booby trapped force field in its own right: group dynamics.

This force field has become so booby trapped, because as a species, we’ve made a collective polarising decision: you are either ‘ in’ or ‘out’. You are either part of ‘us’ or part of  ‘them’.
If you are part of ‘us’ you behave like us in the way we all agreed on, either explicitly or implicitly.

Sticking your head out to say:” He guys, actually, there is something in the way things are going that doesn’t please me.”, is therefore best handled with care and consideration.  

On some level of our consciousness, we all know that every single minor or major conflict in this world between people, began with somebody giving expression to this very same thought :” He guys, actually, there is something in the way things are going that doesn’t please me.”
Do you want to be that person, starting the next World War?

On a theoretical spiritual level, it is often said:” We are all one.” and peace would follow from that understanding.
On a practical day to day level, when the going gets tough on our little corner of this planet, most people I deal with, including myself, don’t see that, we don’t feel that, we don’t experience that and so we don’t understand that at all.

Can’t peace follow from our current levels of understanding? That’s ‘a bugger’!

Will it always be that our palette of choice seems to be, in order to maintain some sort of peace, somewhere in the system:

-          we either swallow our discomforts and suggestions for change favouring  the peace of mind that comes with belonging to a group, or

-          we express our suggestions for change favouring the peace of mind within yourself, respecting our values and ways.

This tension ‘ under the bonnet’ is feeding the grid of the booby trap in the group dynamics.

As long as you stick to one of the two strategies, all is relatively calm. But one tiny morsel of information jumping over the fence to the other strategy and ‘ bang!’, you’ve tripped a mine.
That morsel doesn’t have to be a word.....( it usually isn’t),  it can be uttered in body language, tone of voice,  in actions taken.

I am sure there is a safe way to deal with this mine-field and that is to re-understand it:
This field is a mine-field..... a field to mine ( delve actively into bring to the light and share not only your finds, but also the work and the profits with the others in the same mind-field).
If you can step away from the idea that it is only a field with mines, a first step is made to explore a grander reality, a more peaceful reality.

We don’t have to deny, that  after so many centuries of human  inter relational warfare, there are booby traps and mines under the surface of our consciousness and our relations.

But if we decide more and more often not to add any more and to de-activate gently and together any existing mines we happen to find, being on the lookout for the gems in life to share, we’ve actually ended the war.

This sounds very noble and I suppose Alfred Nobel himself would be jumping up and down of excitement with this analogy.
For those who don’t know, he was the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize, earned a fortune with an invention that was intended to make mining easier, giving people access to all sorts of materials to build a good life with. But his invention became more known for its use as a material to destroy good lives with easily and quickly, in warfare: dynamite.

Still, on a practical level, it leaves some puzzles to solve.

How can expressing a desire for change be done in another, peaceful, harmonious way? Practically. Usable in the real challenges of everyday life, where the dynamite is still all around, ready to detonate on impact?

The strategy:
Be aware of your relative position in giving suggestions for change to a person or a group.

Check first if you are ‘ in’ or ‘ out’, by answering one simple question:
“Is this a person ( or a group of people)  with whom I share that we often and consistently refer to ourselves  as ‘ we’ ?”
If the answer is ‘yes’, fine, that means ‘ you’ are ‘in’.
That means you are in a position to moving on to the next step of  mining in order to bringing things to the light, under their attention.

If the answer is truthfully ‘ no’, that means you are ‘ out’.
You are seeing them as ‘ them’ they are seeing you as part of ‘ the others’. You are in another field. You are not in a position to start bringing things to the light, under their attention about their mining field activities!!!!!!!
No matter how intrinsically valuable the gems are you see right under their noses in their field. No matter how intrinsically sound you advise it, not matter how peaceful your intentions are. You are not ‘in’, you are not actively personally involved. It is literally not ‘ your place’ to make or suggest changes.

(In another blog I may feel inclined some day in the future to expand on this thought in how ‘campaigners’ propose changes are made by ‘ big companies’, or ‘ governments’. But using your imagination, you might already have some clues)

Next, it is important to ‘ in-vest’ in your in-ness, in this moment.
Realise, answering the former question only indicates that in the recent past up till now there has been enough evidence that there is a common mining field you all refer regularly to as  ‘we’.  

But you haven’t in-vest-igated yet if you are (all) actually in the same place, in this very same moment!
Are you personally fully in it right now?
Is the other person in it right now?

All people have more mining fields, you know.  All people also have a personal one called ‘ me’ too, that they like to attend to regularly.
You may be ready to launch something, but if you are not in the same mining field right now, it is rather perceive to be a missile than a message, because technically, you are ‘out’, right now.

Usually, inviting a person in a friendly way to come to your mutual ‘ we’-field  if you see they are not there, is enough for them to let them know when they can be there too.

Now, some more subtle interesting interplay takes place.
You’ve got to find out if the suggestion you are going to bring under the attention, is viewed by all involved as part of the we-field...something everybody, part of mining this we-field, is actively personally involved in.
Observe what happens if you launch a suggestion for change to somebody you have usually a good  relation with, about something you are clearly not actively and personally in-volved in.
Fireworks in your we-field!

So, it must not only be clear that you are both in the same field, right now, it also has to be clear that you are both personally actively involved in the subject you bring to the light in this field, right now.

Bringing something ( anything but surely if it has emotional charge) you mined elsewhere ( in your me-field maybe) to the we-field expressing a desire that the other should do something with it and you stand safely back ... may, for the obvious reason of the current state of affairs in this world, be regarded with suspicion. Why is it that you stand back from it?

So, since you are bringing the subject up since you feel it has importance to the development of this we-field, you have to show your personal active involvement first, right here, right now.
You do that by holding the matter close to your heart, exposing  and expressing everything you hold dear about the issue-in-relation-to-the-we-field.  You share everything you are aware of, but above all you share how it resonates with you on an emotional level relating it openly to your mutual goals and shared values in the we-field.
You state as clearly as you can your motives on why you think what you brought to the light is to be viewed as an asset and not a mine.
If you suspected something could be a mine, you wouldn’t hold it close to your heart. You wouldn’t  touch it, knock on it and praise it for the good qualities you see in it as part of your joint venture, mining the we-field, would you? Would you happily and calmly already have dealt with some of the obvious actions you are proposed could be made? Can you show, right here, right now, that you’ve actually touched it, played with it and looked into how it can transform to the liking of all involved?

It doesn’t do wonders for the structural integrity and the mutual harmony and joy of a we-field to bring mines to it, or to give the impression that you don’t have much information about it  (and don’t care).

And remember, what you say about a topic is maybe 20% of the information you convey about the topic. What you actively personally do with it, what you show in actions and body language about it makes up about 80% of the communication of your opinion on the matter. Energetically conveying the deeper meanings it holds to your system.

When the need to state in your defence rises: “They could/should have asked me questions!”.. you know then that something blew in the we-field.
You have now moved to your me-field, referring to a part of ‘we’ as ‘they’.  You have moved from ' in' to 'out'.
Peace negotiations, waving white flags and picking up some pieces and do some repair work may be the next issue to delve into, in the we-field.

I see the dichotomy.
Here I am conveying suggestions for change.
Saying  that when one conveys suggestions for  change to somebody, one must  make sure they are both in the same field, at the same place, sharing values and mutual goals and all that.
Where am I now, showing you that this is not a mine? Holding it close to my heart?
You can only see my words ( 20% of my communication). How are you supposed to probe into to other 80% of my communication?

Yes, this is part of the truth and that part is completely true, I am violating my own advise here, big style!

However, I also know that there is a larger truth.
In that one I acknowledge that you and me, we are not in a we-field. I write this in my me-field. You volunteer to look into this information in your me-field. Different in time and place. You might not even know me, personally.  In this field, who I am and what I do, doesn’t matter at all. You are relating to words and your resonances to them. In our respective me-fields, we are alone reflecting and vibrating on experiences.

That, is again entirely true (to me), but again part of a larger truth.
We are in a we-field, were we share all information openly and freely and share mutual goals and values, right now, right here. On the physical plane this we-field is called ‘ us, conscious beings’ .
On the metaphysical plane it is called the collective consciousness, or as I call it more intimately ‘ the Knowing’. In this we-field, that contains our collective resonances on experiences, we are all one.

See which of these three truth speaks to you most.
It is all about ' relative position'.
May it guide you, when you sleep a night on the practical implications of it.