Sunday, July 3, 2011
Unexpectedly, as I opened myself
to love, I was accepted.
~Chogyam Trungpa, The Perfect Love Poem
Conflict arises when two people want to be heard and neither is listening. There is disharmony, polarity, a split. This disharmony escalates into dissonance when, instead of taking turns being quiet and listening to each other, you raise the volume and take turns making speeches. You're caught in serial monologues that deepen the conflict and polarize you even more. Cacophony now threatens as you feel compelled to defend yourselves, firing arguments at each other like artillery in the hopes of quashing all resistance to being heard. Alas, you are perceived as the aggressor and defended against in turn... and on and on it goes. Like a war.
In order to resolve conflict nonviolently, monologue has to yield to dialogue, and self-promotion to vulnerability, that is, exposing one's inner world as opposed to imposing it on someone else. Nonviolent communication has been described as comprising four aspects: making an observation about how the situation affects you; sharing your feelings about it; stating your need; and making a request. It has also been described succinctly as making “I statements”. Basically, instead of trying to survive a conflict by taking down the other guy (the war path described above), you expose your weakness to him and ask for help.
This is very similar to Harville Hendrix dialogue guidelines for couples, except that empathic listening, or mirroring, is included from the outset. Mirroring what you hear is a form of holding the person who is exposing himself to you, ensuring his sense of safety, much like a loving mother who holds a child overwhelmed by his feelings. It is a way of containing and regulating intense reactive emotions, healing the wound that caused us to defend against others in the first place.
Ideally, the resolution of conflict is less ambitious than unity, but more ambitious than nonviolence. It is harmonious duality, like the healthy differentiation between a child and his mother when she compassionately embraces his separation and departure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conflicts arise when what you look from is incompatible with what you look at. And that is a complete impossibility for what you look from is what you look at, it is process, undivided awareness. When ‘one’ as verb is being experiences as ‘two’ as nouns, there is conflicts, for unity cannot be broken. Creativity, conciliation, mediation, alternation, retraction are all strategies or safeguard, downstream to an impossible upstream. An incompatibility “break” down those safeguards and pushes us right into what cannot be experience. Thus the panic and urgency to regain our buffers. Right from the beginning, nothing is! Situations, if you feel there are such ‘things’ as situations, are buffers in order to contain what cannot be contain.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the post, I enjoyed the poem you cited.
ReplyDeleteInteresting the use of unexpectedly by Trungpa. It is that shift that happens as we open and accept what is to be beyond control,no?
I view his words to mean the acceptance of oneself in all our imperfections and the karma we inherit opens us up to love of life.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning nothing is, yet all we know and have is something. Absolutely speaking, therein lies the conflict, I agree.
Still, within the confines of those buffers, there are solutions which are real. (Just as there is a way to assemble an espresso machine so that it yields coffee rather than water.)
Thank you, Ellen.
ReplyDeleteExpectation breeds disappointment n love, maybe that is why he used the word...
What is real? Can reality be known? Can it be grasp? Understood, confine?
ReplyDeleteTo confine is to isolate, it is a functional illusion and solutions that may come from this activity surely cannot be call real, they may although have more or less value and validity according to this artificial confinement. We do this by making use of ideas; Ideas (solutions) gathers what we look at with what we look from into one flowing coherent and meaningful whole, but the truth or reality cannot be found in either what we look at (the something) or what we look from. When we fail at gathering (ideas, solutions) what we look at with what we look from, this flowing coherence and meaningfulness is lost. The awareness of conflicts (malaise) surge up when this flowing coherence is under threat; when what we look at is incompatible or antagonistic to what we look from.
Solutions are useful, reality isn’t useful, reality is. But I may be entirely wrong for I am only an espresso machine repair guy. :)
call it a plurality
ReplyDeletecall it nonduality
call it wretched
call it fun
it's never nothing
never one
go philosophize your life
what is real and why is strife
then go tell it to your honey
when you've gambled all the money
or have seen or been a whore
philosophy goes out the door
and while the fool philosophizes
love happens
and
conflict arises
love and conflict to all,
- john o.
Only trust, love, a wonderful friendship and a true commitment should keep you both in the boat, otherwise it may be time to bail. Pauline
ReplyDeleteThank you Pauline.
ReplyDeleteThe journey is intended to bring trust, love and friendship onboard. But, without a commitment to paddle, you are wise not to step in the boat (or, if you've already got in, you're right: it's time to bail out).
Thanks JO, for chiming in.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.psyche.com/psyche/tarot/trumps/fool0.html
Oui. Le fou, c'est moi.
ReplyDelete(Just keep walking, John.)
If we had no words for each others, who would we fight against?
ReplyDeleteWise Words Patrica, thank you.
ReplyDeleteOK, out of the boat, treading water, time to learn how to swim...
Pauline