Greetings, Paul asked:
I want to be sure I understand your meaning, with no error. You are saying that under NO circumstance will you take the life of another who is going to kill, either to save your own life or that of someone very, very dear to you---husband, child, significant other; or of a very significant person such as the Dalai Lama, etc. Is that your meaning? I don't believe in killing in any circumstances. If I were faced with the circumstances described here, I don't know what I would do. Fear is very powerful. In a state of fear, I may act in ways that are inconsistent with my beliefs. I hesitated to speak my answer because I did not think my meaning would be understood. We are trying to communicate across two very different paradigms without explaining the starting premises of our respective paradigms. Your question holds premises that don't exist in the paradigm I am answering you from. My answer holds premises that don't exist in yours. It would take some time and effort, some defining of words and concepts, to communicate meaningfully between our paradigms. A part of me thinks exploring our ways of thinking about the world is the most important conversation we could have. In some ways, I think this is the conversation that might help us collectively find our way out of this desperate place we are in. Another part of me feels that the energy for this dialogue has dissipated, and it would be best to let it go. I attended a beautifully facilitated meeting a few years ago. To an outsider, it probably wouldn't have looked very pretty. The conversation seemed to keep getting stuck, and we seemed to be going around in circle after circle getting nowhere. The facilitator displayed no frustration with us, however, and stayed with us, time after time around the circle. Even when others in the room began to express agitation and frustration with our "lack of progress," the facilitator hung in there with those of us who continued to stew over the issues being presented. For me, there was that sense of "this isn't over." Those of us who were stewing knew our discussion hadn't reached the point where we could identify an adequate solution to the problem at hand. Many times, I felt sympathetic toward those who were frustrated by the process, and part of me wanted to help them in their efforts to shift the discussion to other issues. For some reason, the energy of the room didn't move in that direction, so around the conceptual circle we went again and again. Near the end of the day, I was ready to accept defeat. We hadn't reached that common understanding I craved, and I had come to believe we weren't going to get there. The facilitator started some kind of closure, but then someone in the room wanted to add just one more thing to the discussion, and that brought an "aha" to someone else, and suddenly we had voices throwing out idea after idea and in the space of a few minutes the group reached consensus on the entire thing. I knew when it was over because the feeling in my body was "Yes!" Looking around the room, I could tell it was the same for the others. People were smiling, sitting back in their chairs, and nodding their heads with satisfaction. If the facilitator hadn't fully supported the conversation, and if enough members of the group hadn't been willing to sustain the conversation over the long haul, we never could have reached the deeper understanding and the elegant resolution that finally emerged. I don't feel like this conversation is over, but I also feel sympathetic toward those who want to move on to other things. Julie * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
