Reality check of lofty values | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Unnat (zeniinet.net.au) | |
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 22:17:39 -0600 (MDT) |
Dear All I'm happy to receive the responses privately and feedback if there seems to be an enthusiastic response. I'm looking for clear info / links / reality checks / resources regarding commonly held definitions of values/principles/processes. I find that some good people share what I view as shallow, and sometimes self-serving, assumptions that are at best totally subjective and at worst, highly manipulaive and covertly hostile. I often feel as though I am walking on thin precious ice; a brittle, precarious surface that shatters easily under the steps of an 'oaf' like me. The ones that bother me most are those that are deemed almost sacred. Frustrating in a one-on-one communication, I've witnessed this shallow approach cconfuse and reduce a group into a kangaroo court with often devastating results. Note my growing, oh hell, my frustrated cynicism? "When you ..., I feel ..." The basis of clear, honest communication. My reality: owning the problem, accepting responsibility for one's own part, non-blaming, goodwill, aiming for win/win. What I see: often the opposite, sealed with a tear. eg, one of my favourites, "I feel attacked ..." Is this a feeling? Sounds like an accusation. "unsafe" What does that mean? I am out of my comfort zone? Or this is dangerous? Or I'm a 'fraidy cat? I mostly see it used as a oblique blame and a manipulative tactic for getting one's own way. "speaking one's truth" I wish! How many times have I seen hands held to hearts, eyes roll sky-ward while uttering this uncontestable line. The next second, out comes a totally self-serving and irresponsible statement or even a bold faced lie! "trust" I trust in the go(o)dness, the ki, the ultimate mystery, whatever. My reality: In people, trust is knowing, knowing is loving, loving is understanding that we are not all always trustworthy. Trustworthiness is a combination of charater and competency, the mix required depends on the desired result. What I see: Trust put out as an undisclosed expectation, eg "I trusted you and you didn't come through!" - charater required without agreement. Or the other side of that coin is a kind of self-righteous trust that has a built in failure clause. eg, " Blah is going to do x-job." "Is Blah able?" "Trust!" Later, "Blah stuffed up but that's OK. We won't let him/her know and we'll redo x-job." - competence required without agreement. I am all ears! Warmest regards Robyn
-
Reality check of lofty values Unnat, April 8 2000
- Re: Reality check of lofty values Fred H. Olson, April 13 2000
- Re: Reality check of lofty values Tara Ingram, April 13 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.