How can we clarify our thinking, to see more clearly?
Maybe I should give up doing certain assumptions. When our thoughts and opinions are based on assumptions, we do nothing but block any patterns of thinking. For example, if you judge someone as lacking in creativity, perhaps you will not be able to accurately judge his idea, even if it was a really creative one.
Feri Lorincz
So let’s not assume. To rule only on the things that we really know or to abstain from saying anything, keeping an unbiased perspective.
But how do we know that what we already know, is true? Because almost everything seems to us pretty true. I heard once that if, from everything we say, at least 55% would be true, our place would be on Wall Street, making millions annually – because we always win those 5% over 50% . But because very few of us are there (and I think it would be many who would like to earn millions annually) means that most of us are wrong in what we think we know. As I’m not on Wall Street, so maybe I’m wrong in my assertions from this article.
But let’s continue to see how we could know what would be the true about a particular thing.
The Cube Test
At my first Law class, my professor suggested us to imagine a large cube that’s hanging in the middle of the room and each of us to say what color the cube is? Of course, depending on the place everyone occupies, each of us should have been able to see one, two or three sides of the cube. And everyone was right, in its way! But the “Truth”, as our professor told us, was a sum of these individual truths. So, gathering information about how every student sees the cube, we could find the colors that cube has. Super! I mean, it’s not that I am necessarily wrong, but what we do know, is incomplete and would be preferable to gather opinions and perspectives of all those involved. Now it’s more relaxing, but starts to get complicated.
A matter of perspective
A few months ago I read about an experiment that suggested the difficulty of effective collaborations. We could use this to exemplify the difficulty of establishing a dialogue, in the Greek sense of the word and discover the truth, as I outlined above. The experiment used a box allowing two people to look into it and see the shadow of an object reflected onto the box. Because of the different angle, each sees a different form. Their task was to exchange information about what they saw to identify the object. For example, if the box would be a cylinder, one person sees a circle, the other a rectangle.
The idea was to encourage the two subjects to work. But the opposite happened. Each viewer assumed that everything he saw was right and what the other person sees is wrong. And they were educated, very smart adult subjects.
I wrote all this as an introduction to what I did the other days. Perhaps you have seen various posts and discussion about the desirability of constructing buildings that will be called The Nation Salvation Cathedral vs the use of that money on various social projects, such as building hospitals or schools. And I think you have seen and my opinion about it. Now I am not so “proud” of what I posted. But if I still think it was a mistake, let’s all learn something from it, in order to not repeat it.
As a first step, I should have been listening to the other part, to know what are the priest’s believes and arguments. I did not even searched the net. So I did it now:
IPS Andrei Andreicut says it’s needed because theirs actual Cathedral is “small and modest”, comparing it to the Vatican’s. From the church website I deducted that it is a moral duty of the Romanian people and its historical desire to build a very, very large one – no matter of costs.
Appellants assert that’s requires a huge amount of money, the amount that could do many social activities, more important for people, which should be the essence of the action of the Church. And from here they follow to talk about the greed of the Church and huge wealth returned to this institute. Interestingly, it is not disputed where it will come the money from, but the idea of their waste in order to satisfy the Ego of Church’ seniors.
There are two ways, apparently opposite but, if we consider the ideas we have just exposed, they are actually half-truths. Of course, there may be other views on that topic. Truth we can find perhaps by adding both, considering both true. In this case, what could be a good solution for both parties?
Here’s one possible. How about selling a considerable part of Church’ fortune and with some of it, finances its Cathedral, and with the other part funds humanitarian projects? Instead, the community agrees to finance the Cathedral and social projects from budgetary sources – for its half.
I do not know if it’s a good idea or if there could have chances to be applied. But I think that doesn’t really matters. What is more important is this way of looking at things, to start thinking this way. And once we begin to think so, what it would change in us and around us? Worth a reflection.
Reframing Perspectives
I think that being aware about the multiple right perspectives and let our client find them by themselves, without influencing them with our own agenda. It’s about Reframing Perspectives, including polarized thinking, labeling, extreme perspectives, listening, control and “should” in order to introducing lightness by acceptance, opportunity and choice.
I published this article in Romanian, on my blog – http://ferilorincz.com/2014/01/11/249/#more-249
