The Warrior -- Carlos Casteneda

[Julie Smith]

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

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html