Reconciliation |
|
Reconciliation |
|
by Dr. Peter Meier, MeaningGiving Informatics BGI AG Zürich (CH) and Dr. Ted Sandercock, Concerns_Based Consultants Adelaide (South Australia)
In his famous book, "THE LAST BATTLE", C. S. Lewis describes how 2nd class SHIFT, the monkey manages to virtualize life to 1st class PUZZLE the donkey in such a way, that he can misuse him, and through him others, that his plot of cannibalizing life for his own short-term benefit goes unnoticed until 5th grade beings in the name of the issue of the 6th class appear on the scene to reconcile willing people with life in Narnia once more...
Reconciliation refers to the process of healing dysfunctional divisions between human systems (individuals, teams, organizations, nations, cultures). It requires deregulation of what hinders fulfilling relationships and revitalization of each other. It provides participants with the opportunity to experience each other so that they emerge richer from the experience of valuing diversity and healing past divisions. Such processes result in cultural forms such as dance, ritual, music, celebration, dialogue, theatre, meditation, play, sharing stories, exploring ideas, exchanging goods, financial transactions, providing services, doing business, exchanging roles or positions, sharing ideas, values etc. You might like to use a few of these. However, when such processes merely become just formal expression and as such values in themselves, the division based on the unavoidable difference in value systems give rise to reconciliation again.
In the following example, we apply our knowldege to two human systems corresponding to us, Peter and Ted to personally highlight that first of all we need reconciliation in our relationships, rather than lectures from or to others about reconciliation as such. That requires a science to identify and deal with the common orientation points that make reconciliation a mutually meaningful part of life-fulfillment. In fact we both have something in common; we were both trained as physicists and are both trying to bridge the gap between the personally neutral humanities and the content-free science of nature in which real human beings try to make sense of her life. Ted focuses on concern for such personal situation so they can be processed, Peter on its conceptualization so the can be revealed adequately in their meaning to life-fulfillment. As a guideline we use our basic parameters underlying our formal expression thus representing our innate identity that strives for fulfillment in the following six steps.
| 6Pm-Ted | the chaotic 6Pm-ambiguity and the mid-term 9Pv-orientation seeking life principles requires |
9Pv-Peter | ||||||||||||||
| w.W-u.M in terms of O.C-B.P, where O=objective, C=communi- cation B=boundary conditions P=process allowing people to communicate about their objects and objectives before they set the rules to proceed... 1/6 of all humans do not personally relate to this level |
Grade 1.
A mid-term relevant common project in which each party can apply his manipulation
know-how and factual knowledge. Ted, in terms of ALARPM World Congress because he w=values
Peter's objectives with communicating, Ted with his W=perception and Peter in terms
of being able to be able to R=relax from what is already achieved in
terms of the parameterization of the process of reconciliation as
presented here. Several such attempts have been made between the parties and whenever
Peter's D=thinking in terms of giving meaning lead to adequate boundary conditions,
Ted somehow came up with some u=excuses of the well know sort, being concerned with giving meaning
to some collectives instead of what Peter hoped, to follow up the one-to-one
relationship with Timely Exchange of Project-Orientated Competence, TEPOC©
until an impact can be made in some collective or with some qualified persons in charge of
some system. Ted's excuses read: "We have been busy. Ted went to Melbourne
for a Religious Ed. conference on Collaborative Ministry - the new paradigm for the main
stream churches. The ministry of the baptized and based on the trinitarian concept -
creator, redeemer and facilitator; maybe we should say transformer. The church communities
have a role to prepare for godly relationships in society and creation. The implications
call for unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity." Obviously Ted is
striving to get the M=maximum Without reconciliation, we have thus come to a dysfunctional division, not because we are "bad" or do things wrong, but because of who we are, as adequately mapped with the parameters described above. This highlights the necessity for reconciliation in every relationship of human systems: Linear values such as the money in the deregulated market, or votes in a liberal democracy or the globalized Share Holder Values are no adequate substitute for reconciliation to overcome fragmentation and alienation! In order to get across with such insights, |
F.R-D.p full BPOC- TEPOC- capability to claim awareness and a philosophy to go about existence |
||||||||||||||
- 1/3 of all humans do not personally relate to this level! |
Grade 2.
Seduction know-how appears both desirable and useful. By this we mean the social
skill to get the right direction across, so that more people can follow us in short-term
say with charisma, rhetoric etc. However, both Ted and Peter, together with 1/3 of
mankind innately lack this specific ability in their life-principle. And that is
why so far neither could convince the other to participate in a common process beyond the
above mentioned division, which thus becomes dysfunctional when not
reconciled. We are then stuck with our four respective 1 st class areas of focus, 3Ra,
9Pp, 4Oe, 4Cm we relate to with entirely different modes, Peter with D-p-F-R and
Ted with u-M-w-W; the good news is we are considering the same four out
of 144 aspects of life, and the bad news is, in two entirely different ways impossible to
reconcile as such: Peter wants to model them with D=thinking about what
is essential in order to F=feel his way into an understanding R=relaxation. Ted
expresses his experience by being concerned with the u=constraints that are
relevant in aspiring the M=maximum tuning in to w=values consistent with the W=perception
in view of longing to set himself free altogether in other activities. This stale-mate if not overcome, through the resulting increasing stress, demands in |
- |
||||||||||||||
| 1D there are 9 such Re-dead ends and each of us has to face one of them or get blocked by it, other- determined, cut of from life- fulfillment! |
Grade 3 an
Orientation Knowledge that
points beyond anyone's initial insight towards the lifefulfillment
of as many as possible. However, this is asking for a confrontation
with political correctness. In fact,
political correctness focuses on the matter of self-evident personally-neutral B=boundary condition for everyone, because that is what can be
e=established in a liberal democracy and
substantiated in the market place while everything else cannot be and
gets no support on the basis of the prevailing philosophy and the
resulting trend at the time. But what if that collective
process does not converge, as we all know it does not, towards your or my
lifefulfillment? However, lets us face it, despite the deep meaning of this statement, it
is politically correct to u=excuse one-self from its meaning by just
highlighting the doubts about the system as voiced by Peter with 2Be=inferior
arguments! Similarly Ted is coerced into 1Re=patience
in his D=considering politically incorrect contributions, often beyond
what is healthy for him. Now if Ted and I give in to such collective dams/blockages, we are damned from our life-fulfillment and end up in a stressful or broken relationship! Thus, among other problems, in many urban areas the divorce rate is approaching 50% and chaos through fragmentation spreads in epidemic proportions world wide. In the present political correctness, personally neutral thinking catastrophes spread faster than genuine personally relevant solutions and this despite the still ongoing rapid increases of the efficiency of content-free technology! Since World-War II we have known that civil obedience has its ethically
justified and legally acknowledged limits; remember Hitler was politically
correct at the time and place in the same way as Reconciliation as considered here asks for its extension to mental warfare such as Madison Avenue Marketing Strategies, which were already described by Naisbitt in his famous "Megatrend" as waging war in the empty containers of people's minds, just as "ordinary" wars are fought by firing bullets through human bodies demeaned into having the body count to one's favor, such as in World War I, and later in terrorizing people into and out of the most dehumanizing ideologies of the now dying century of human catastrophes. All this demands a New World Order that is more than a justification for a replacement of dehumanizing ideologies with a global economy that reduces life to numbers and money, until it can be entirely technologically substituted. Thus the only way to overcome the bottleneck of Re-political correctness with its associated dead-end technology is to restore |
2u constraints in terms of dealing with the containment by politics and sociology |
||||||||||||||
| FL-m | Grade 4.
Using relationships to reality that are truthful in view of life-fulfillment
rather than in terms of % and $: Peter has taken on this basic claim as his in 1980 as his
w=caring value by which he can S=justify his
existence and which made him determined enough to start developing Applied
Personal Science APS®. By doing so, Peter has an anchor
and a link to the other side of the Re-bottle neck, which allows him to open up
for genuine reconciliation whenever an opportunity arises. Ted vividly F=feels
that the L=solution is in the fairness between individual's
concerns and political correctness. He is determined to do what is m=minimally
required to cope with the otherwise unavoidably growing system of degradation.
And for that reason, he is prepared to step outside
systems he cannot deregulate and revitalize from within
with discussions, lectures, conferences etc. formatted from a short-term, Ted actually suggests we all need the following principles of collaborative ministry instead:
This of course requires some underlying |
w-S caringly determined O-B capability to go through the bottle- neck using science and pedagogic |
||||||||||||||
| RV-.hp | Grade 5.
Substantiality into which we can wholeheartedly entrust our life for its fulfillment:
It is one thing to know who could represent that and what it that could be and yet
another, how each of us can personally relate to HIM/it. First of all it is revealed how
we act when faced with survival and that appears chaotic to outsiders for it leaves no room for arguments; it is the spontaneity
that is self-evident. For Peter that is triggered when confronted with objectives which he then attempts to
ruthlessly c=harmonize with what is already self-evident to him
as a mathematician does in terms of axioms or a physicist in terms of the proven laws of
nature. He then overcomes the v=communication about his W=perception
adapted to what is. For him, this emancipation from the inferior
inferior boundary conditions he was confined to
in the bottleneck of stage 3, opens him up for the process that results from his A=intuition challenging
himself and through him others, to experiment with the M=maximum
in terms of lifefulfillment. Ted on the other hand in his concerned communication R=defocuses spontaneously into polarization with his V=concepts about meeting with people, in order to be able to follow up the process that stems from what is p=essential to him, as ambivalent as it may be in his challenging h=living space. What thus happens spontaneously either hardens the above dysfunctional division up to the point of one party breaking the relationship in such a way that the other cannot reconnect, or it bridges it by a mutual understanding of the different way the partner perceives the truth relevant for the fulfillment of his life in view of some commonly held, sustainable belief. The former case results in pain over the lost return on investment, the latter in the mutual benefit of the synergy discovered eventually as the fruit of facing not only one's own bottleneck but in supporting the partner to get through his, rather than give in to the temptations the world offers in stage 2 as an incentive to go along with its prejudice in stage 3 - which can be "useful" to make others other-determined... In the former case, we can die in the mass and in that kind of death we all become equal. In the latter case, the resulting synergy becomes an obligation for Timely Exchange of Project-Orientated Competence, TEPOC© to reconcile other relationships similarly in view of the finite life, that only makes sense in terms of |
c.Wv-.AM u=excusing the B-capability
in the bottleneck; free for POC-flow facing life
squarely and personally |
||||||||||||||
| c.v-S.A everybody has the potential to personally relate to this level on all O.V-B.P aspects and is thus able for Timely Exchange of Project- Orientated Competence, TEPOC© ! |
Grade 6.
Fulfillment of as many lives as possible: For Peter that is, lacking other
goals, the m=minimal requirement any boundary condition has
to obey for him to allow to interfere with his h=living space.
This is because lifefulfillment is not just a vision for him. It is his long-term L=solution,
upon which he makes his objectives and thus himself dependent with his
thus self-centered V=concepts by which he communicates his
position in the whole. Similarly Ted's long-term perspective falls in place by his creative S=self-assertion in which he can reflect his seemingly blocking A=intuition in order to make use of his ability to c=harmonize the dependencies in such a way, that the v=confusion in being together can be dealt with personally rather than as a collective phenomenon of say, mobbing and scapegoating. If thus Peter is able to conceptualize the path of those interested in this way and Ted manages to make everyone concerned about it personally rather than resorting to peer or other interest groups, then reconciliation can be conceptually incorporated in its true sense in science from where it can find its way via culture into politics for the profit of the people in view and empowering them to rise above the economic imperative in order to make their economic contribution serve life rather than a substitution for life. |
L.V-m.h rather than becoming O.V-B.P other- determined, I am now free for BPOC TEPOC being concerned about the book of life and personal, life-long memory |
||||||||||||||
| Ted | ongoing process of mutual reconciliation |
Peter |
More and more indicators point to a decreasing life quality despite increased productivity beyond the growth of the population, due to the opposite of synergy, waste of resources of all kinds, above all human. This points to an increasing need for reconciliation between humans and God, among men and women, and with the environment, as well as between organizations, companies, nations and cultures in the way outlined above. A one-sided technological growth as fast and desirable as it might be, does not change the fact, that for example the richest 20% of humanity possesses 74 times as much as the remaining 80%; more than in all previous human history. The personal-neutral philosophy that has been presented to us hasn't got any more mistakes than when it began with Plato, but due to its saturation it more and more becomes obvious that it is the mistake! For that reason Peter has invested in sites like this one that are parameterized to fit the individual concerned.
A whole system of parameterized sites is in preparation in German on http://sinn.think-systems.ch; sponsors and people interested in applying it are asked to register their needs and contribution, so we can start making an English version available. We are available for human systems analysis, seminars and workshops upon request, on the spot, or remote online, to overcome things like the linguistic turns and dynamics of other man-made systems such the money systems that make us do things we do not really want as a consequence we cannot be responsible for. The cause being dearly held misconceptions, jargon, simplification, generalization, status, political correctness, fear to loss position power etc. which give rise to dysfunctional divisions and thereby the need for reconciliation with Timely Exchange of Project-Orientated Competence, TEPOC©, before the point of no return.
[context]
.