The distinction between facts (as we understand them) and our premises about these facts is vital to understand the vicissitudes of change. We tend to examine everything except our premises themselves. A lucid presentation of this perspective can be found in the book Change by Paul Watzlawick, et. al.
Three of the ways this predicament can occur:
1) A solution is attempted by denying that a problem exists. Action is needed, but not taken.
2) Change is attempted regarding a difficulty that is either unchangeable or nonexistent. Action is taken when it should not be.
3) First-order change is taken when action needs to be taken at a higher level. Action is taken at the wrong level.
Regarding #1:
It is known that "open secrets" in families exist in order to maintain an acceptable social fa??ade. They are open in the sense that members know about them (at one level or another), yet no one is supposed to know that everyone else knows. In these systems an unspoken interpersonal contract keeps a pathological equilibrium in place.
Increasingly today, as knowledge spreads, two glaring societal examples stand out: the realities of the 9/11 false-flag event, and the presence of extraterrestrial beings on our planet. These are phenomena we may sense at an unconscious level, while engaging in self-deception at another. We simply deny what we also know... that open discussion and action regarding these events is crucial. The keynote of this level is denial.
It is not unusual for denial of problems to be linked with attacks on those either pointing them out or trying to deal with them. This pattern is based on a gross simplification of the complexities of interactions in social systems. This stance can only be maintained by refusing to see the complexity and then defining one's tunnel vision as a "hardheaded", realistic and honest assessment of life. This is commonly attached to a linear and unidirectional understanding of causality, rather than a circular one, as revealed by systems theory.
Regarding #2:
The Buddha's (Siddhartha Gautama) First Noble Truth stated the life itself carries with it an inescapable element of "unsatisfactory-ness." At times we may lose what we have, get what we do not want, or fear the loss of the status quo. Because life is constantly changing (which the Buddha described as the "impermanence of all phenomena") - evading these realities is akin to trying to make our world into a perfect, always gratifying, utopia - and is bound to fail; however, the real failure is the refusal to examine our premises. (Comments - Scott Peck) Instead, we blame the outside world (such as "society") or our own ineptitude. The widely accepted, often unconscious, concept of "original sin" in the West plays a key role in this dilemma.
Quite simply, in a given moment there is a discrepancy between actuality and potentiality - between the way things are and our ideal attachment to the way they should be. Here, the questioner allows him- or herself to challenge everything - except the assumption itself - creating a situation in which the "solution" becomes the problem.
Here, the assumption: that things "should be" the way we desire them to be - becomes the problem that requires change--while the way things are - in the moment - needs to be accepted as the reality. This does not mean that we cannot work for change, A phrase from A.A. that involves the dichotomy of "letting go" vs. "holding on" applies here: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." The challenge is living this.
#3:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
