The Garden

…an exploration to be used later as foundation of discussions on communication…

Good afternoon Francois!

Hi Frank, what have you been up to?

Oh, I’ve been improving my gardening skills…

You?  Garden?  Be serious.

I am!  You see, I’ve learnt so many interesting things lately, and especially with the season slowly turning towards Spring, regeneration and new growth, I feel positively inspired. 

Hey, I’m the gardener here.  So do you mind if I test your knowledge a bit?

No, I don’t mind.  Ask away.

Why do you have to pull up weeds?

I don’t have to, firstly.  Some weeds are unsightly but actually useful, so I may choose not to pull up all weeds, but in general and according to expectations, weeds will take nourishment from the useful and beautiful plants – so if I want them to flourish I would weed the garden.

Wow!  There I learnt something new.  What is your favorite gardening activity?

I really like cultivating the soil – you know, fertilizing, airing, composting… 

Gmph! I guess if you do that properly the rest of your gardening is easy.

Yes, but it depends. Some plants grow rampant and would have to be kept in check so that there is enough light and space for the others, and so that the aesthetics of the garden is maintained.  Some people love wild gardens, but I can’t get it over my heart to give my favorite but less robust plants over to the whiles of the wild.

Then you must love pruning.

No, actually I don’t like it.  Yes, it is necessary and I do it frequently, but I don’t like it.  I also think doing it well and regularly is less effort on both my side and on the plant’s side.  I’d rather pick off little bits with my small secateurs than have to lob off big branches with a hacksaw or an axe.  I am not an axe man!  I prefer knowing the limits and excesses of the plants I want to put in my garden and select them carefully –planning is so much better than pruning.  I’m much happier if I can train plants to grow in certain ways, with the right kind of light and nourishment. 

So if you select new plants for the garden you would not plant ones that would easily take over, no matter how beautiful they are…

It’s either that or I get a bigger garden.

OK, Frank – since you are not a person in flesh in blood, tell me, where is your garden?

My garden is all the behaviours of the people around me.

What?  How so?

Well, like a real garden helps you to relax, reflect and re-create yourself, so the behaviours of the people around me energises me.  And like you would do different things in your garden to create the feel of it, the aesthetics, that which pleases you, so I do different things to get people to respond with behaviours that nourishes and refreshes me – or create an environment in which I can be myself fully, to put it in another way.

So what you are telling me is that I am responsible for how other people behave towards me?

Yes, amongst a couple of other things, that is pretty well put.  The meaning of our communication is the responses we get.  Oh, by the way, remember that we also communicate with ourselves – kind of internally chat to ourselves… so we also generate intrapersonal meaning with self-talk.  As a matter of fact, our self talk when someone else is talking with us is a pretty important ingredient of the meaning of the message.

So we may completely distort the message!? 

Sure. It happens all the time.

It’s a wonder we understand each other at all! 

We understand more than may meet the eye.  We also understand on an unconscious level… We incessantly receive and send signals. Allow me to do a small experiment, please?

Go ahead.

For the next 60 seconds, don’t communicate.  Don’t communicate anything at all.   Mmmm, perhaps I must make it 2 minutes just to give you time to get used to the idea first and then not communicate.  Ready?

Yep.

Go!

*two minutes pass*

Well done, you sat perfectly still and more or less expressionless for the last minute. 

More or less?

Yes, more or less.  Even your posture still communicated something, and there were moments, briefly, when subtle changes in your posture gave away small meanings.  I don’t know for sure, but I am guessing that you were having a nice conversation with yourself there for two minutes…

*both laugh*

OK, I give up!  It seems that you are telling me that humans cannot not communicate.

Yes, that’s pretty much it.

I want to disagree.  How about when we are sleeping?

Interesting point.  Some people would say that our dreams are messages, either from our own subconscious or from another realm.  Others would say that they are just our nervous system’s way of ‘spooling’ information experienced during the past so many days and although a dream seems to be comprehensible, they are in fact pretty garbled.  When we recall them again our minds produces a story line of sorts.  Perhaps, if we expand the definition of what communication really is, then dreaming (processing) is still communication.    But before we get to what communication is, tell me how do we communicate?

We talk, we gesture, we use facial expressions and body postures, we give off pheromones, or make sounds that can’t be said to be words.  We sing, we write, we draw and show pictures… or if you want, we represent meanings in various symbolic forms (sounds, letters and pictures, movements, poses and to a lesser extent smells).  One person is the sender of the meaning-construct in a message, and the other receives it, processes it and responds to it. 

This ‘processing’ intrigues me.  And the responses.  Are they immediate and accurate?

Yes and no.  On both accounts.  They are immediate in that we give feedback on our understanding of the message, but we may also choose our responses later.  Aaah, I see!  If we sleep on something before we choose an appropriate response, we are processing unconsciously.  And that is still part of the communication process.  Neat. 

Sure, but wait before you classify sorting information as communication… How accurate is our communication?

How accurately the message was shared depends on the receiver’s full comprehension of the message (little to no deletion, distortion and generalization – if that is possible).  The ‘sender’ checks the response for appropriateness to his or her intent (intended message content and intent behind the message) with feedback mechanisms like elaborating and asking questions,  and will provide more message (information plus meta-content) until he is sure the message is as accurate as possible. 

That is a mouthful.  So let me check if I understood you.  There are no communication failures in respect of sending off the message according to one’s intent, but there are failures to feedback – a misunderstanding is a failure to ensure that the intended message was understood as it was meant.

That sounds right.  If we make sure the message was understood as it was intended, we could expect responses that are more in line with what we wanted.  Hey, I can see how that is like gardening.  Your vision for the garden plus how the plants are growing tells you what gardening acts you need to perform… prune, fertilise, harvest, protect, weed, stake, water… and the intensity of these acts.  Sometimes the garden would need a lot of water and sometimes only a little.

Absolutely.  Now, as you said, like gardening activities there are specific communication acts and communication strategies.

Frank, if you are going to give me academic mumbo jumbo I’m outa here!

Relax.  Let’s take that statement you just made…  Would you agree that that is an assertion?

Sure.

If I interpret it correctly you meant:  “I want you to understand me (and where I come from) and treat me as such.”

That’s more or less it – broadly speaking, yes.

I have a choice of how I will respond to your assertion.  I can assert myself too or oppose your assertion, go along with what you asserted, or do something neutral.  I responded to your assertion in a neutral way, but I could also say: “Sure, I won’t use academic language,” submitting my interaction to your criteria, or I could say: “Get a dictionary and keep up.”

Mmm… and then I would have a choice to do something neutral, contrary or accepting.

That’s right.  We can either dance or start a battle of wills.  My communication acts say one of four things:

“OK, I will listen and respond according to your assertions.”  People submit or defer to assertions based on perceived superiority of other party (status, age, gender, race and so on,  based on an internal value or stereotype), and or based on a cost benefit ‘calculation’. 

Or – “OK, this is more or less what I had in mind too.” People may also go along with the assertion, affirming it, because for them it is already the direction they would have taken, so here they don’t submit to the assertion.

Or – “No, who are you to assert?  I want you to understand me; my point of view is more/also valid.” Countering an assertion results in a power struggle; it is about who is superior to whom, and whose self interest is strongest.

Or – “I ignore your assertion.  Let’s find common ground and go from there.”  Not getting hooked will result in a better chance of bonding and both parties self interest being served.

Easy enough to grasp…  If I understand what you said correctly, I can either go along with someone’s assertions by falling in behind or next to them, or I can resist it by opposing it either directly or in more subtle ways, or I can fall in next to the person but we change direction to suit both parties better.

Pretty good summary, yes!  Now I am going to list a whole bunch of communication acts and you can decide for yourself whether the communication behavior is an act of surrender, affirmation, opposition, or collaboration.

Slowly, please.

Here we go:

-          Insult, belittle, put down, criticize, ridicule, deride

-          Discourage, dissuade, scare, daunt, depress

-          Reprimand, scold, berate, discipline, chastise, admonish

-          Smear, vilify, defame

-          Complain, protest, whine, nag

-          Curse (pronounce bad things to happen to…)

-          Challenge, disagree, confront, dispute, contest, oppose, object, question

-          Deceive, mislead, trick, betray

-          Taunt, tease, mock

-          Plead, entreat, beg, ask (to persuade…), request

-          Boast, brag

-          Confuse, confound, complicate

-          Warn, advise, counsel

-          Congratulate, applaud, praise

-          Commiserate, sympathize, show compassion

-          Divert, sidetrack

-          Ignore, disregard, snub

-          Blame, accuse, hold responsible or accountable

-          Converse, discuss (shared point of view, sharing meaning;  on a topic or free floating)

-          Inform (purely to inform – if that really exists…), explain, enlighten

-          Compliment, flatter

-          Agree, affirm, concur, acquiesce

-          Incite, motivate, encourage, cheer, support, praise

-          Persuade, reason, negotiate, consult (presentation of information and ideas to change the listeners’ point of view (change beliefs!) and generate action

-          Bless (pronounce and wish good things to happen)

-          Decree, (say so shall it be), pronounce, state as fact

-          Question (to gather information), interrogate, interview, ask
-          Greet, welcome, salute

-          Amuse, entertain, charm

-          Promise, assure, guarantee

-          Entrance, hypnotize, captivate, delight, enthrall, charm, fascinate

-          Worship, pray, wish

-          Educate, teach, coach (complex combination of some of the above)

-          Consider, decide, reflect (internal process, weighing of facts and feelings, filtered against criteria…)

Phew!  A bit heavy on the negative side… It looks like the secateurs, the axe, the nail in the tree trunk… and perhaps herbicide, or other ways to inhibit unwanted growth. 

That may be so… I’ve not checked that every negative has an antonym, or whether there are really more negative acts than positive ones.  What else did you notice?

The same acts, or some of them, can be done in an assertive, submissive, collaborative or neutral way, for starters… There also seems to be nuance differences, differences of intensity or meaning.  I guess that would depend on the values and beliefs of the person experiencing the actor’s behavior.

Good insight!  Interesting that submissive acts do not make the one accepting the assertions a weakling…  To shape the garden it is a valid strategy equal to asserting.   Imagine if you had only an axe to garden with… Now imagine that you have all the tools to support and nurture the plants in the garden around you.  The rewards are so much richer if I have a full spectrum of acts at my disposal! 

I see the point yes.  That was quite insightful. I could never imagine that we do so much by just communicating!

It’s amazing, isn’t it?  We will get back to this when one day we talk about behavior strategies… for now it is enough to say that some acts are more useful than others, and that some people are more resourceful than others with their communication acts.

Yes, I can imagine that there are people that can read the receiver of the message correctly and deliver the act to the best interest of both – prune when pruning must be done, but also feed and water.

Yep, it all depends on the communicator being in scarcity or abundance consciousness too.  But let’s pick up the thread that seems to be emerging from what you just said: there must be a reason or reasons why humans communicate.  What do you think, why do we share meaning in all the fascinating and many ways that we do?

Well, if I have to take a shot at it I would say we want to reduce uncertainty or cognitive dissonance; foster relationships; create and share meaning and so bond socially; or generate action (coerced versus agreed) to achieve some objective or benefit or interest.  I also think we need to assert ourselves – our status, or ‘rightness’ of self concept or contexts of control.  We also communicate to influence others’ perception of self (their or ours).  We share information and meta-information (feelings, values and beliefs, attitudes, states) and I think this goes with interpersonal bonding.  We also influence other people’s perception of information held in high regard (dogma, ideas, opinions etc) and this I think goes with social bonding.  Ah, of course, we also submit ourselves to assertions or influencing, perhaps to fit in or to gain some kind of benefit or acceptance.

Now that is a mouthful! So if I’m getting you right it is about gaining something?

Yes, perhaps that is a good, but very broad, reason for why we communicate.  Come to think of it, we either gain something or sacrifice something, or both… if I express myself I could gain something now or later.  Or I can choose to express myself later, to gain something now or later.  Or I can sacrifice myself now or later to gain something now or later.

Nice. I would say that those patterns of communication and behavior indicate a deeper reality, perhaps a belief system…  So you are telling me that at the heart of all our communication there is one thing – to serve my self interest?

Yes, I think we aim to obtain good will (agreement, giving of some benefit) to promote ‘my interest’, or we aim to discourage actions, intentions or opinions against ‘my interest’.

What about ‘our interest’?

Ah, I see!  The ‘my interest’ presupposition is a rather cynical view, isn’t it?  Mmmm – let me play with this idea for a moment.  If your interest serves my interest I would go along with what you assert…  If your interest will diminish my interest I will oppose what you are asserting.  And if we could create an interest which will serve both of us it is worth working together.  But this is very rational.  Something is missing.  Why would I consent to take a course of action that is clearly against my self interest, acquiescing to someone else’s assertions?

Remember, all behavior has positive intent, and this intent may not always be rational, or rational from the outside.  So let’s say that communication does have a rationale: conscious or unconscious ‘economic’ assessment of cost versus benefit of the responses to my communication acts, to maximize interest of self or of self + another, but never only of another.  This can be both rational and irrational - where perceived benefits are not obvious, or unconscious.

I agree!  Hey, did we just come up with that?

Yep.  Nice work.

No, Frank, hang on.  Communication strategies and acts and reasons are all good and well, but I’m missing something.  Don’t we communicate differently in different settings?  I mean we use different acts and perhaps change the communication acts themselves in different contexts.  I can’t imagine that I would pay a compliment in exactly the same way in a formal, informal and intimate setting…

We have talked about different contexts earlier so yes, I think we can use them for communication too.  There is the intrapersonal dimension – internal dialogue, thinking, processing – and if we apply meaning-making internally, this communication is about my self-concept.  There is the interpersonal dimension where we relate to and stand in relation to others and here meaning-making is applied externally, but still to myself; this communication is about my relationships.  Then the third dimension is the social dimension; we communicate about us, internal to some group or community, and meaning-making is about our common cultural attributes.  The fourth context operate on the archetypical level – things that all cultures have in common, and here meaning-making is about humans – vast and vague but powerful patterns that tells us we are all connected in some patterned way.  Then I want to add a context.  We may find ourselves not bonding to another individual, group or mankind in any given event.  The event is more or less unique and short in duration, and perhaps we don’t expect any significant meaning from it, so meaning-making here has an open quality and meanings are not ‘preselected’ as in the others.

Frank, on a conscious level I don’t think most people will be aware of these contexts at play in any given situation…

Sure.  Still, it is amazing that we automatically adjust our communication according to the different contexts.  It makes communication a rich and varied phenomenon.  How did we learn to do all of this!?

Well, learning is a-

Let’s leave learning for another time.  Do you think there are any consistent rules for communication?

Not really… perhaps a set of principles, but of those I have no clue.  Come on Frank, I’m sure you can come up with something.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  If I have to generate principles by quickly distilling everything we talked about so far, I’d say that the main principles shaping any communication act would be:  Type of relationship, context or setting – there are different sets of rules depending on whether it is a personal or business relationship, or a formal or informal setting, and so on.  Phase of the relationship or the time context – we talk differently to strangers than to old friends; communication develops as a relationship develop.  For example, there are certain things about ourselves we only disclose to people we have had a long trusting relationship with. Cognitive dissonance and reducing uncertainty – we always aim to get external representations of information as close to the internal representations as possible.  In other words to get what we see as close as possible to what we believe.  To a certain degree we would also change internal representations to be closer to external representations, and then the next principle is strongly at play…  Expectations – we apply criteria, values and beliefs about self, the other party, the information/message and the context.

Right.  I’ll need some time to digest that.  Now, we agree that some people are more resourceful than others when they communicate…   What makes their communication so effective?

You saved the best question for last again, Francois.  Well first and foremost I would say rapport is essential.  Rapport means a shared physiological state, shared history (the five contexts), matched values, beliefs and attitudes, matched non-verbal language: tone of voice, posture, gestures and so on. Rapport takes uncertainty and dissonance away.  The next thing I think is important is sharing a Common language.  By this I mean not only dialect and meanings of words, but also meta-language (deep structure is visible to both parties – not assumed).  Common language also takes uncertainty out of the way.  Because abstract language may be very ambiguous, especially where the message receivers are not well versed in it, experiential language, metaphors and stories are much more powerful to reduce uncertainty.  Then the last thing I think is important is congruence. If what the sender says (content of the message), feels, thinks (non-verbal cues) and does (actions) are in line, the message is trusted, and uncertainty and dissonance are dissolved.  Mmmm – perhaps I should add another one – flexibility.  A good communicator has the flexibility to adjust their communication acts appropriately to the context and the receiver of the message.  The message is constructed in such a way that the receiver understands it easily and quickly, and that it ‘gels’ with the internal world of the receiver.

Frank, I am even more curious now!  This was a marathon session.

Yep, indeed it was.  Communication is fascinating.  We have but scratched the surface…  This is such a big part of what we as humans do every moment of the day that the topic is inexhaustible.  We talked mostly about the externally observable behavior and very little about the internal processes that produce the behavior… that is another fascinating aspect of communication.

OK, save that for a next time, please.

Sure.  And if you apply any of the things we talked about today in the world out there again, may you have great fun and may even more learnings come from that.

Thanks.  First I need a rest.

Yes, good plan.  So while you are sleeping your unconscious can sort and process all the learnings to become resourceful communication acts so that you are always known as a great person to be around.

OK, Frank, and may you, while you are exploring new frontiers of the human psyche, find things fascinating and fascinating things to bring back as stories and metaphors to metamorphose awareness into wisdom.

You’re catching on!  Good night.

Good night, Frank.

____________________________________________________________________

References and relevant reading:

J. Allan Hobson, Dreaming, an introduction to the science of sleep, Oxford, 2003

Clare Graves, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970 – regarding Value Systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_acts

A heart that runs over...

Good morning, Francois!

Good morning, Frank.  You sound very chirpy this morning.

Yep. I have a fabulous question for you.

On my empty stomach! 

It’s not so bad, you’ll see.  Get yourself a nice cup of tea.

Alright, ask away.

Francois, do you think you are better than other people?

Talk about a bucket of ice water in the face on a winter morning!  My answer is yes and no. Of course I think I am better than other people – in some respects.  But in others other people are better than I am.  Or if you look at from a higher level, I, as a person, am no better or worse than anyone else.  You know, some people have more money than I do – and in this regard they are better off than me.  And vice versa.  I have talents that few other people have and I am good at certain things, but then again, so does everybody else.   But if you mean whether I think that I am in general in some way superior to other people – the answer is a big no.  So where does this question come from?

It’s not coming from anywhere, but it is going somewhere. Ready for the next one?

Frank, from you I expect nothing less.  Yes, alright.

How aware do you think people are of the impact they have on others?

The classical EQ question…

No, not exactly.

I think some people are not aware and they don’t care, some are aware and they don’t care, some are aware and they care, some are not aware, but they care.  I also think that some people know they should know and care, but don’t have the skill to apply this knowledge, or there may be other things preventing them from it.

Like what?

Fear, perhaps.

OK.  We’ll get back to that.  I am sure that you have a map of some sort of the people in your life – a constellation so to speak – and that you may classify some people as generally negative and others generally positive…  What is the difference that makes the difference for them?

If I think about that… mmmm… I can take a shot at an answer… I think the positive people believe in abundance and the negative people believe in scarcity.

Wow!  Profound statement, that.  What exactly do you mean?

What I mean by the negative people believing in scarcity is that they have to fight for everything, they believe in a zero-sum reality – you have to pay for what you gain… everyone pays for what they gain.  So to gain anything there is someone else somewhere that may lose and would be protecting what they have and you have to really fight them to take away whatever benefit it is you are seeking.  From people or from life – they believe you have to wrest the best out of life, squeeze it, milk it, and even then it yields only drops.  So they complain about how hard life is, about how difficult people are, about how they are being exploited and being kept in their place, coerced, watched, hoodwinked.

Phew!  I can see how you don’t want to surround yourself with people like that if you could choose…

Yes.  It may be a truism, but I read a quote that said, show me the people you surround yourself with and the books you are reading and I will tell you what kind a person you will be in five years.  Just one thing… I don’t believe people are negative per se, just that their beliefs make them act and talk negatively – that belief in scarcity.

Ah, I see.  And tell me about people that act and talk ‘abundance’.

They firmly believe that there is enough around for everyone.  Enough love, enough air, enough recognition, enough time.  There are enough good things for all and then some.  What they have is enough, even though it may be less than what other people have.  They are givers.  They don’t expect anything in return.  And to me there is a difference between truly positive, abundance people and bliss ninnies.  When things are not OK, they acknowledge it.  And they react differently from negative people – they say: “Well get through this, richer!” and mean it in terms of experience gained and shared with other people.

They don’t fight for what they have? In any way? How do they look after themselves?

No they don’t fight, they work.  Work is not a battle for them.  In any case, in my experience no battle has ever been won by any of the parties.  If one loses, both have lost something.  I have never won an interpersonal battle.  Yes, I have had some contests of will, and it may happen again in the future, but turning them into a battle is not wise.

So conflict is to be avoided at all cost?

No, conflict is natural and often necessary.  It is how the conflict is resolved that makes the difference.  It can be done in a creative way where both parties are winners. 

Say for example I booked a ticket for a sports event, and when I get there the seat had been taken.  Someone had taken you for a ride, or the other person…

You see, that is why it is good to always be early!

*both laughs*

No, seriously.  There will always be someone somewhere that is dishonest, greedy etc – the scarcity believers.  Let’s say it was me that bought the fake ticket from a reputable seller.  I would take it back to them and ask my money back.  That is if there wasn’t an open seat somewhere else and I could still watch the game.  If I had bought the ticket from an unreliable source and I knew it, then I should not complain about not getting the seat.    You know, I might even go and claim my money back, and tell all my friends about my experience.  I will feel better if I talked about it – well, that is what is popularly believed – and my friends will avoid falling in the same trap I did. 

Mmmm… and that will create a situation where the reputable seller loses business.

Sure, and they can turn it around by ensuring that they sell valid tickets.

OK Francois let me put this to you in another way: we can’t all drive in the fast lane.  Even if it is filled with fast cars, the sheer mass makes it slow, and then sometimes people drive cars which can’t maintain the speed in the fast lane, slowing everyone down.

There are an abundance of lanes on the highway!  Everyone will get to where they need to get to.  The question is how we make it safe, or unsafe, for the people around us.  Or pleasant, or interesting, or nurturing, or peaceful… or exciting…

The abundance believers sound too good to be true!

Oh, they are – in the sense that it is not easy to always keep up the behavior.  Sometimes the consensus reality of scarcity also creeps up on them.

So, what do you think is the difference that makes the difference here?

Once again I think it is fear.

OK, explain.

Fear drives many, perhaps most people… fear of losing something, fear of not having enough, fear of rejection, of not being good enough, of not being the best… fear of the unknown, fear of not measuring up.  The beliefs linked to fear perhaps always start with I – I must win, I must have enough, I must succeed, I ought to have the most, I must not be ridiculed, I always need to seem competent…  Or ‘they’: they are going to dislike me, they are going to chase me away, they are going to laugh at me…  So I look at myself when I am annoyed about not being respected and I ask: what fear is underneath this?  Do I need someone else’s respect to feel good about myself? Only if my ego is addicted to it…

So fear is the ultimate evil…

Oh, no!  Fear of danger is quite healthy – it actually keeps us alive.  But we imagine so much possible danger to us from countless sources that we constantly feel that we need to fight to survive.  It’s unnecessary.  Be scared of real dangers, yes.  So I would rather say the devil is in the fears we conjure for ourselves.

So, if fear is the cause, what effects does it have?

Mainly I think fear creates mistrust.  If I am fearful of people, or the unknown, I may mistrust them, be suspicious.  It is one thing to be careful, but to live in fear of what might happen or might be done or thought about you – to me that is sheer madness.  Also, I think fear underlies all aggressive behavior – fear of losing something gets people to preemptively strike, or they may lash out if they feel that something dear to them had been violated.  So, if for example a man holds his competence as a high value, any insult or perceived insult to his competence would cause a reaction. 

How would an abundance-believer deal with it differently?

Interesting question…  mmm … and I see how easy it could be to fall into the trap of: I’m the better person here.  An abundance-thinker would not react negatively to someone telling them that their skills (or their product, or their work…) are not good enough.  There is always something we can improve and if the other party genuinely sets a high standard, the abundance-guy has enough time, energy and intelligence to learn to do things better.  No sweat.  Even if they must hear: “YOU are not good enough,” they can take it down a level or two and find out how specifically they don’t measure up and learn to close the gap.

And if your abundance-guy knows in his heart of hearts that what he offers is very good and that the criticism is unfair?

The best thing is not to get defensive and remain in abundance-thinking.  Chances are good that the critical party will come around to see the standard of work, or skill, or product at some point in time.  If that does not happen, then the abundance-guy knows that there are ample people elsewhere that may just appreciate what he has to offer.

So let’s stretch your abundance-guy a little more…   he is a superabundance superstar.  And let’s pit him against the most fearful, distrustful and volatile superhero you can imagine.

Ah, you want him to fight?

Yes!

For what?

For what’s right and good!  For himself, or because his values had been violated.

OK, Frank.  Do you think he will do battle?

Aaah. No.

You see, the opposite party’s distrust will not go away if he fights, and if he doesn’t… well: “what is he hiding, or planning?”

So you say he loses even if he does not fight!?

Yep.  The win-win solution for this dilemma would be not to get involved with the megascarcity-guy in the first place.

So he’s better than the scarcity-guy?

No, Frank.  He copes with life in a different way, but he is not a better person.

OK, I don’t get this.  The scarcity guy may be destroying people’s lives and livelihoods, whereas the abundance guy creates an environment for healing and growth for all he touches, and you still say one is not better than the other.

Their actions and the outcomes of their actions can be compared, sure.  How do you judge people? By the outcomes of their actions, or by their intentions, by their authenticity?  If judging is to be done, then let the ultimate Judge do it.

Let me get back to something you said earlier… not to get involved with the scarcity-minded in the first place… How would you do that?

Oh, they are easy to spot. In their communication with you they do one or more things from the start.  They try to scare you, or impress you, or dazzle you, or intimidate you, or amuse you, or control you. You’ll get messages like:

• “This is how things are done here or this is how I am – fit in or go away”
• “ You will comply with the following protocols, rules, policies”
• “This is the best place/I am an expert at – the rest is bad/toxic”
• “If you don’t do it according to my rules you will cause damage”
• “OK, let’s have some fun around here” – which also implies a lack or scarcity of vibrancy…

How are abundance people different?

They are also easy to spot.  As a matter of fact, people like to be around them. I have the knack to fall in love with them, utterly and completely.  Not the romantic kind of love, more like Rumi fell in love with Shamsudin… an absolute trust, adoration and respect… I start glowing by just thinking about that! 

OK, that is you.  How would someone else be able to spot an abundance-believer when they met one?

They want nothing from you and want to give you nothing.  They are interested in who you are and what is great about you.  And if you tell them your problems they never offer solutions but let you come up with your own.  They let you heal yourself if you need healing, and let you learn what you need to learn without teaching.  If they have to measure you, say for example in a business situation, they will set the boundaries clearly and guide you until you are comfortable with the limitations and performance asked from you; in short, they set you up for success. 

Seriously, do you know people like that?

Oh, yes. One or two.

It seems that you have your model for abundance/scarcity guys all worked out…

It is a model, yes, and like most models dealing with people, it yields certain insights and even changes in awareness and behavior.  In reality all of us move in and out of scarcity and abundance consciousness all the time, with some people mostly in the one or the other, and I dare say the greater majority of people more or less balanced.

Right.  Phew!  Today I need the rest after our chat…

Hey, you started it with a bang.

True, true.  I was curious – as always.

As always.  Now, I’ll let you go, but tell me first, why did you want to know about fear?

If you know the disease you may find an antidote.  You gave me an idea about the antidote for fear.

Really?  What?

Love.

Gmph!

Yes, and a way to know if it is present, or absent… So thank you for that.

A pleasure, Frank.  Rest well.

Thanks – you too.

Self Awareness - off with bang!

Hi, Frank.

Hi! Do I detect a lack of sparkle in your voice?

Yep, I am a little despondent at the moment. Tell me, though, how are you?

I am well, thank you. Allways finding fascinating things, and finding things fascinating… So what is bugging you, if I may ask?

Well, I am in a bit of a predicament. One of the senior people I work for often throws out barbed comments. You know, I can’t stand it when my competence or performance is attacked.

Mmm , that sounds interesting. So how did you react?

I’m afraid I flared up. There are some battles not worth fighting because they will just do more harm than good. I forgot that.

True. Flaring up may have devastating consequences, for yourself but also for the system you are part of.

I know. I am really peeved at myself for slipping up, but it seems that I have some deeply ingrained programming I have not gotten rid of yet. I hate feeling that I am not in control of my actions, acting as a matter of habit or conditioning and not through intelligent choice.

You have a point. No thing like coincidence here… so the synchronicity of my recent discoveries and your predicament is pretty amazing. So if you don’t mind, let’s build a bit of self awareness and at the same time some awareness of others and the systems we participate in.

Sure.

Let’s start with a very high chunk – a huge generalization: Behaviour is always driven by our needs, programming or habits, and decisions. If we are faced with a situation similar to or in the same state as others in the past, we are bound to react in more or less the same way as we reacted to those situations in the past. If we are faced with a new situation, a bit of confusion is natural and conscious choice plays a role, or we may react inappropriately by falling back on a habitual response. How does that sound so far?

It makes sense, go on.

Another high chunk… animals have six main behavioural modes: Hunt/eat, play, mate, fight or flight, and rest. Sometimes the mode is a purely expressed, and sometimes they are a little mixed. Humans have the same modes, but let’s call them slightly different names: work, play, mate & relate, fight, flight, and rest. I add a presupposition that all these behavioural modes have one thing as their aim – to preserve the organism and its kind to be able to procreate. We work to get money to pay for our house, car, holiday, kids education, food… We play to learn and relax to be better at working, relating… We fight or run away to preserve ourselves or the ones in the system whose well-being we feel responsible for. We have friends and work together in organizations because relating is one of the ways we create an environment that is friendly to ourselves and our families.

Phew! I would really like to replace my fight or flight responses with relating, playing or just good old work.

Not so fast. Sometimes fighting or fleeing are the sensible things to do. Now let’s look at the third high chunk. There is another quality to our behavior – it more or less follows one of three unresourceful patterns or one of three resourceful patterns. Using the metaphor of archetypes explains this well. The unresourceful, unholy trinity of human interaction is the Victim-Perpetrator-Rescuer game…

You know, this is exactly what I’ve been thinking about. I feel like a victim here and I clearly responded like someone that was cornered, threatened… I am being told to toughen up and get out of my ‘victim-consciousness’. In other words, feeling slighted, attacked, or belittled is all in my mind and was not meant like that by the perpetrator.

That may be so, but it may also be the perpetrator’s way of denying that it is a perpetrator. Is this a battle you could win?

No, absolutely not.

Then, if I may give advice, don’t make the perpetrator into a monster by attacking it, flaring up, defending yourself or positioning yourself with other people around it. Those are recipes for disaster. Sit it out – your survival is at stake.

OK, so you say that there may be truth in that I have reacted like a victim where it may not have been warranted. So please tell me what the Perpetrator archetype looks and acts like.

Do you want to be right to act like a victim when a perpetrator is doing its stuff?

Well, yes.

Hang on to your horses – from acting like a victim to being a victim is a small step. So let me tell you what to look out for first. Later I’ll give you insight into how the resourceful archetypes would react to a perpetrator. While I am talking, see which of the characteristics and behaviours are applicable to you too. OK?

Fire away.

The Perpetrator is a typical bully, or gangster, likes blaming others, shifts blame, is never responsible, finds fault, criticizes, intimidates and coerces. They are anything from covertly (passively) aggressive to openly vicious – the main thing is everyone knows you tread carefully around them. Their feedback is often abusive – they don’t put the fish on the table, they clobber you with it through the face. They may label their aggressiveness as assertive, but don’t know the difference, or how they are experienced. In some cases they don’t care. They may use authenticity as an excuse for bad manners. Perpetrators are easily offended. They may be seen as ruthless, cruel, savage. They shout, point fingers, or fold their arms, and lean forward. In extreme situations they may move from verbal to physical assault. They may also be manipulative – as sweet as treacle – but watch your back. They may be the Perpetrator only when provoked, or all the time, needing no provocation. Some people have the Perpetrator as their default persona. The bad news is that all of us sometimes go into thug mode. You could recognize many of the Perpetrator actions and attitudes in yourself – sometimes loud and clearly expressed and sometimes only a blip.

Mmmm – makes me think my reaction to the barbed comments and unthoughtful feedback made my inner Perpetrator act up. Down boy! You say there are other ways of dealing with Perpetrator behavior? I don’t want to go into this mode again.

Absolutely – we’ll get to that. Remember that in extreme cases Perpetrator archetypes destroy the system. People don’t want to work for or with them and leave, leaving them unable to achieve anything. Their behavior stifles creativity and progress and their services become obsolete and irrelevant; they find their competitors in business that are nicer people getting ahead. They are linear thinkers and don’t think beyond a couple of steps and only about things that will make them look good – very self focused.

That’s not good, and as I said, this is not the type of behavior I would like to live out.

Good. Let me tell you about the Victim archetype.

Poor me!

Yes, indeed. That is the motto of the victim. Everyone is so cruel to me! This is as good as it gets… Victims tend to band together and form troops of negativity, complaining how hard life is, how unfair. They blame themselves – I deserve all that comes my way. I’m not good enough. They easily feel done in. They want others to feel sorry for them. They may gossip and muddy the water, but they never stand up for themselves. Roll over, play dead. Keep your mouth shut and do your job. They believe that they are incompetent, inefficient, not worthy, helpless and hopeless. Victims don’t sustain the system and is also very self focused. As with the Perpetrator archetype it is also easy to slip into the Victim role, and all of us do that from time to time. Sure, many people refer to themselves as a ‘survivor’ – as in I’m an abuse survivor. It indicates that the abuse has stopped and I am no longer in the victim position, but it does not let the offense or offender off the hook.

I notice three things from the situation I told you about. I am touchy about competence and performance – wanting to always be acknowledged or at least for the feedback to be of the fish on the table type; I took comments and actions personally and in victim mode and then flipped into perpetrator mode. Fascinating – in a strange kind of way. So there is hope?

Yes, but let me finish with the Rescuer first. They think they have seen the light and are neither Perpetrators nor Victims. They give advice and tell people how they should act, think and be to be happy. They would rush to anyone in distress and console them, and savagely fight against injustice and other predators. They are peace makers, and they tell the parties involved how the peace should look like.

Mmm… I guess that these people are also self centred and that all of us have a bit of this archetype in us too.

Spot on. So which one of the three do you think is the bad guy in this unholy triangle?

Oh, it must be the perpetrator. Grrrrrr!

Nope! It’s the Rescuer. They are manipulative and keep the game alive. As long as they can rescue they have a mission in life – it makes them feel important. They stir things up and bring the perpetrator’s attention unnecessarily to victims. They easily tell victims: “I told you so”, and so keep them in victimhood, being Perpetrators themselves. Thing is, they easily get blasted by the Perpetrator – eaten alive – and then they act the Victim. Naturtally.

Enough already! I get the picture. These dynamics are negative, unhealthy and unsustainable and it seems inescapable.

It can be overcome. See the three negative archetypes as one side of a coin. The other sides of the coins are: the Lover (instead of addict or victim), the Warrior (instead of Perpetrator) and Healer (Instead of Rescuer).

How do these archetypes behave?

Well, firstly, as a collective they sustain, nurture and develop the system, not deplete it. They don’t think linearly but in terms of interdependence and cause and effect sometimes reversed. The lover bring a playfulness, gentleness and n deep appreciation of all things beautiful and harmonious. The Warrior defends when the system (not self) is threatened, and does not launch campaigns to punish, pilfer and vindicate. The Healer does not offer remedies but he is approached for healing and all he does is create a climate where the healing can happen, done by the one who needs it. He also understands that sometimes something needs to be amputated to save the person. So here you have the playful wisdom you have told me once you like so much, plus a bit of well-placed fierceness.

This is more like it! I know many people like this and I strive to be like this, consciously. But why does my ‘programming’ then still run my life? Why do I have to go volatile and destabilize a system around me?

May I offer a gut insight?

Sure.

You talked about having your competence and performance criticized makes you throw the Molotov Cocktail. Would you point to another man’s penis and go: “Na nana naaa-na, little dick, little dick”?

Hell, no! That is perhaps the ultimate insult to a man.

And to a woman belittling her nurturing nature would be the same… the ultimate insult. Let’s for the moment link competence, performance, nurturing ability to sexuality… and suppose that insulting these things of a man or woman is as good as saying they are worthless as human beings – they can’t fulfill their role in terms of contributing to and maintaining the species…

Hectic!

You may have heard that that which peeves us about other people is a good mirror for our own weaknesses… in other words, you may have triggered an attack because of something you lack – your weakness mirrors the other person’s weakness and they respond strongly because they don’t like that to be shown up. Or vice versa.

Sure, I’ve encountered that in the past. This is different though – the person I am talking about more or less consistently digs at everybody.

So you react and they don’t?

Challenge and you are eaten alive.

As I said earlier, this is not a battle you should fight – you will not win. However, remember this: You are perfectly capable and perform well – at work, at play and… in bed. You don’t need to defend when your values are attacked and you don’t need to fight back – your ego is not that fragile and inflated. Remember that wise playfulness and fierceness… Remember that the part in a system with the most flexibility has the most influence. And above all remember that, if one part of the system changes, the rest will follow suit, after some initial resistance. If you want the ‘bully’ to stop you will have to change the system’s dynamic... But if you jump in and want to change the system, the system is going to spit you out. Or you may destroy the system if you are not careful.

So how do I avoid that? How do I avoid behaving like one of the negative archetypes?

Practice and awareness. For the next two weeks, check all the communication coming your way and filter for ‘attacks’. Check your reaction. Will you be a Healer, Lover and Warrior in your response and sustain the system or are you going to flip into monster mode?

Remember to breathe, huh?

Yep. Now, it’s time for me to go. Rest well!

Thanks, you too.

Alchemy - in short

Good evening Francois!

Hi Frank, nice surprise!

Yep, I thought I’d give you a break while you focus on important things. You know, starting a relationship, changing jobs and losing a family member are some of the most stressful things a person can experience and you had all three in a very short space of time.

True. Thanks for the mindfulness, my friend. If it had not been for many years of work-on-self, I think I would not have come through all that so well.

Hm. Tell me about this work-on-self…

OK, let me start by saying that I believe only me can work on me, really, but that there are two other equally important parts to the work – God and other people. But as I said, I can work on me, but not on them.

I get it… What do you mean by work?

Oh, by work I mean that I have had many years to observe myself and others, and make adjustments to how I see things, how I deal with things and how I express myself. It is not only about expressing myself clearly, that I am understood and accepted as I am, somehow I was also aiming at actualisation.

Ah!

Yes, and what I noticed in myself and others is a path to get there.

Mmmm – I am sceptical about generalisations, recipes and one-size fits all solutions, Francois.

I taught you well!

*both laughs*

Yes, that is a good point. I may be noticing the path in others because that is what I have come to know. The sequence may not be the same for all, but I have a feeling that the various ‘steps’ have a way of getting one there. And they are not definite steps, 1, 2, 3… The distinctions between the processes each represent are not nearly clear cut, but the labels are useful.

So give me a broad outline of your model, please.

With pleasure! My starting point is becoming more aware of myself, discovering who and what I am, and all that I am and want to become. Of course this is only completely meaningful if I also discover what people are about – how humans are built and how they function, so to speak.

And for that you need the trust, respect and flexibility we’ve already spoken about…

Absolutely! NLP is a useful tool because it gives a neutral and clean ‘user guide to the human mind’ - not loaded with dogma, unverifiable theories, myths and esoteric mumbo jumbo.

How on earth then do you get acquainted with the third leg of your triangle!? I mean religion – spirituality – is all about unverifiable theories, stories, statements, inspirations and given laws.

You mean how does one become aware of God?

Yeah, and all the other spiritual beings and entities whose existence can neither be proven nor disproved?

Interesting point. What worked for me was to learn as much as possible of all religions, philosophies and thought systems. At the same time I must emphasise that knowledge for the sake of having knowledge is useless. It can take you only so far, and it is important that God can’t be known in the sense that we can perfectly understand Him. Awareness also has another dimension, not only knowing, but being aware with your senses.

I’m sure you have many insights to share about this awareness and your discoveries… When you’ve achieved enough awareness of yourself, people and God, what next?

Perhaps just a breath behind the start of self- and other-discovery is acceptance. Accepting that I am different from others, and sometimes that I was just the same as everyone else proved to be quite challenging to me! Then, of course there is also deciding which things can be changed and which should be accepted as a given. The acceptance of God’s existence and working, of course, is faith.

Mmmm… that special kind of trust. Did you blindly accept everything?

Oh no! I questioned and challenged everything. And I still do.

Ask me about it.

*both chuckles*

Not everything you see and hear should be believed, Frank. Remember, believing is seeing. So even my own beliefs did not remain unquestioned. But I can say that when my discovery and acceptance have reached a certain level, my self confidence and confidence in myself, my confidence in others and my trusting them had grown noticeable. I guess it was because I now know what to trust myself with, and what to trust various kinds of people for. Perhaps my expectations have just become realistic and distinctive…

Interesting insight, Francois… And then? When you’ve learnt most of what was to know about being human and could confidently trust yourself and others for what you could be trusted, what next?

Then one must apply oneself. No use I (or anyone) has all the knowledge and awareness and confidence in the world and we don’t use it! Also, this is where I can ‘apply’ others by teaching and leading so that they can become aware and confident, and where I can so to speak apply God by being a blessing.

Ah… expanding awareness. You listened!

Yes, Frank. I’ve actually been quite busy researching and incubating, threshing, distilling, composing and nurturing these ideas the past six months. I studied a lot and somehow my other-than-conscious found my philosopher’s stone and elixir of life…

You did strike gold, it seems!

Yes, Frank. Gold is a great metaphor for actualisation, and alchemy is a great metaphor for the processes one goes through to get there. But I don’t want to make too much of the metaphor – I don’t want anyone to get lost in the mythology of the historical alchemists. Let’s just say the study of substances (awareness) and their combinations and interactions, with some degree of mastery – which ones could be useful (confidence and trust), has lead me to produce gold (actualisation). What was required, first, was to find the elixir of life (flexibility) and the philosopher’s stone (respect). Moreover, the alchemist needs other alchemists to learn from and contribute to. And perhaps the most important ‘law’ of the process is that only if God participates, the alchemist will actually produce gold.

What specifically did you do to start actualising?

Can I first comment on your turn of phrase for a moment?

Be my guest.

I have started actualising, I have not arrived yet. There is still much to learn! Perhaps making gold is not the true objective and one day I’ll discover that making water is my ultimate purpose. What I did was to write poetry. It helped a lot with awareness and discovery. I read a lot and met many different people. I am applying myself in team and creative situations and have started to make friends in different ways – finding new love, finding my old comrades again, sharing whatever love that is appropriate. This is me. I think every person must work out for themselves what exactly they could do.

I must go think about that. A good leader when necessary normally tells you what to do, not how. You are giving the how, but not the what…

Yeah, how is that different or the same to religion and philosophy?

A topic perhaps for another time. I am tired and need to go simmer.

You do that, and I’m sure you’ll find some gold at the bottom of the pot, perhaps just a smattering… just enough to let you know you have started to master the alchemy of an expanded awareness.

Thanks, and good night, Francois

Good night, Frank.