I bought my husband a card a few years ago, because it said what I believe about marriage. And I plan on giving the same card to my son's friend today, as he embarks on "a challenge of his lifetime"! All healthy relationships are defined, I believe, on some or most of these principles, so I thought I would share them, as they are of important value to me.
Marriage is (by Barbara Cage)
A commitment. Its success
doesn't depend on circumstances,
feelings, or moods-but on
two people who are loyal to
each other and the vows they
took on their wedding day....
A relationship where two people
must listen, compromise, and respect.
It's an arrangement that requires a
multitude of decisions to be made
together. Listening, respecting, and
compromising go a long way toward
keeping peace and harmony.
A union in which two people learn
form their mistakes, accept each
other's faults, and willingly adjust
bahaviors that need to be changed.
It's caring enough about each other
to work throught disappointing and
hurtful times and believing in the
love that brought you together in the
first place.
Patience and forgiveness. It's being
open and honest, thoughtful and kind.
Marriage means talking things out,
making necessary changes, and forgiving
each other. It's unconditional love at it's
most understanding and vulnerable-
love supports, comforts, and is
determined to triumph over every challenge
and adversity.
Marriage is a partnership of two unique
people who bring out the very best in each
other and who know that even though
they are wonderful as individuals
they are even better together.
Except for the personal terms, i.e. forgiveness, disappointing and hurtful times,I believe that this kind of commitment could also be applied to other kinds of relationships (business, and diplomacy). The personal terms are to be replaced by the "rule of law", which is considered respect in a civil society.
Showing posts with label negotiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label negotiation. Show all posts
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Power of the Mind via Albert Einstein
The unleashing of power of the atom bomb has changed everything
except our mode of thinking, and thus we head toward unparalleled
catastrophes.”
—Albert Einstein
I wonder what Einstein would think and say about the conflicts we fact today?
except our mode of thinking, and thus we head toward unparalleled
catastrophes.”
—Albert Einstein
I wonder what Einstein would think and say about the conflicts we fact today?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Humans and Need
My grandchildren came to spend the night last night. Our youngest is almost 7 months old. She is a delightful child, but can be very demanding when she knows what she wants. This got me thinking about human behavior.
Last night, I attempted to sleep, but our youngest woke up several times. Each time I met the need and put her back down to sleep. Her needs were necessities to her comfort, a bottle or a clean diaper. It would be ludacrous for anyone to think that I "knew better than she" about her needs. Suppose I took that assumption. I thought she needed to learn a lesson about being so demanding and I refused to meet her needs. What would have happened?
We can only surmise, but would she eventually fall asleep from exhaustion due to crying out from hunger or discomfort? Would it build trust that her needs would be met the next time she felt the hunger pains or the need for a dry diaper? Would I have a different analysis if she were 4 instead of 7 months? What about adults that are emotionally 7 month old? Do I handle them the same way I do my grand-daughter? How much should be taken into consideration in dealing with another human being? Shouldn't aduts become self-aware about their emotional needs, so that these can be acknowledged and then, it would become easier to negotiate relationship?
I think not understanding the hidden desires or needs, so often leads to miscommunication between adults. These needs come from deep longings of the heart, not upfront "facts". These needs may not even be known to the person, themself, and certainly not the person who interacts with them. Adult humans have ways to meet the needs they fear will not be met, and so often it is not a straighforward way. These needs could be "met" throught self-destructive behaviors, such as self-denial, or addictions. And the needs can also be met by some form of manipulation.
Manipulation has its own problems, besides being a demnad, it is also a denial to mutually beneficial relationship. And it undercuts the basis of a healthy trust in relating to the other.
My granddaughter is building trust about the world. Will the world be seen as a "good place" or will it be seen as primarily a bad place. This balck and white childish view is compounded by the way one understands the world through religion, as well. Sometimes these images can be self-defeating because of the stark contrast of "bad versus good". When one is trained to see in black and white, the world doesn't fit and this lack of understanding can lead to simplistic solutions that undercut real problems, and don't meet and address the real needs..
It is hard enought to communicate with healthey individuals, that have had stable backgrounds, because all humans seek their own self-interest, even when it looks like alturism. (there is some kind of "pay-off" that subverts the "costs" upfront). But, when self-interest is submerged under "altruistic concern" or religious "care", it becomes doubly hard to communicate, negotiate and come to terms in the relationship. The manipulator has a lot to loose, at least in their eyes. And they can scape-goat anyone that stands in their way.
Last night, I attempted to sleep, but our youngest woke up several times. Each time I met the need and put her back down to sleep. Her needs were necessities to her comfort, a bottle or a clean diaper. It would be ludacrous for anyone to think that I "knew better than she" about her needs. Suppose I took that assumption. I thought she needed to learn a lesson about being so demanding and I refused to meet her needs. What would have happened?
We can only surmise, but would she eventually fall asleep from exhaustion due to crying out from hunger or discomfort? Would it build trust that her needs would be met the next time she felt the hunger pains or the need for a dry diaper? Would I have a different analysis if she were 4 instead of 7 months? What about adults that are emotionally 7 month old? Do I handle them the same way I do my grand-daughter? How much should be taken into consideration in dealing with another human being? Shouldn't aduts become self-aware about their emotional needs, so that these can be acknowledged and then, it would become easier to negotiate relationship?
I think not understanding the hidden desires or needs, so often leads to miscommunication between adults. These needs come from deep longings of the heart, not upfront "facts". These needs may not even be known to the person, themself, and certainly not the person who interacts with them. Adult humans have ways to meet the needs they fear will not be met, and so often it is not a straighforward way. These needs could be "met" throught self-destructive behaviors, such as self-denial, or addictions. And the needs can also be met by some form of manipulation.
Manipulation has its own problems, besides being a demnad, it is also a denial to mutually beneficial relationship. And it undercuts the basis of a healthy trust in relating to the other.
My granddaughter is building trust about the world. Will the world be seen as a "good place" or will it be seen as primarily a bad place. This balck and white childish view is compounded by the way one understands the world through religion, as well. Sometimes these images can be self-defeating because of the stark contrast of "bad versus good". When one is trained to see in black and white, the world doesn't fit and this lack of understanding can lead to simplistic solutions that undercut real problems, and don't meet and address the real needs..
It is hard enought to communicate with healthey individuals, that have had stable backgrounds, because all humans seek their own self-interest, even when it looks like alturism. (there is some kind of "pay-off" that subverts the "costs" upfront). But, when self-interest is submerged under "altruistic concern" or religious "care", it becomes doubly hard to communicate, negotiate and come to terms in the relationship. The manipulator has a lot to loose, at least in their eyes. And they can scape-goat anyone that stands in their way.
Monday, February 14, 2011
On Self Love, and Self Understanding on This Valentine's Day
On this Valentine's Day, I thought I'd share this quote about love by Ayn Rand, "Ayn Rand
"To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."
“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32
One must value themselves and their own values, before they can choose freely and be responsible for those commitments of value. Understanding oneself is of necessity to evaluate and proritize, so that one can act responsible and principled. Otherwise, one will be prone to act to "please" without negotiation. One's life will be an enslavement and co-dependency. And it will not be healthy!
So, on this Valentine's Day, "Know Thyself", so that you will be able to stand against those that would want something that you do not want for yourself!
"To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."
“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32
One must value themselves and their own values, before they can choose freely and be responsible for those commitments of value. Understanding oneself is of necessity to evaluate and proritize, so that one can act responsible and principled. Otherwise, one will be prone to act to "please" without negotiation. One's life will be an enslavement and co-dependency. And it will not be healthy!
So, on this Valentine's Day, "Know Thyself", so that you will be able to stand against those that would want something that you do not want for yourself!
Monday, November 1, 2010
What Would I Do?
I just got a call asking me political questions. It got me thinking....What would I do? And what do I believe?
The question made me question whether I would govern on a practical/utilitarian model or a principled/deontological model. I don't know.
Certain principles must be adhered to, if we want to protect a Constitutional government. One cannot get too practical without compromising and undermining the basics. But, what are those basics? Are they ideologically driven, or pragmatically negotiated?
Because of such quandaries, I wonder if we are judging some of our politicians, too harshly. Compromise is a necessity if one is to get anything done. Our Founders balanced power for this very reason. They wanted to protect our government from abuses of power. And such is a necessity if we continue to remain free.
What drives me and what concerns me most? What drives or concerns you most?
The question made me question whether I would govern on a practical/utilitarian model or a principled/deontological model. I don't know.
Certain principles must be adhered to, if we want to protect a Constitutional government. One cannot get too practical without compromising and undermining the basics. But, what are those basics? Are they ideologically driven, or pragmatically negotiated?
Because of such quandaries, I wonder if we are judging some of our politicians, too harshly. Compromise is a necessity if one is to get anything done. Our Founders balanced power for this very reason. They wanted to protect our government from abuses of power. And such is a necessity if we continue to remain free.
What drives me and what concerns me most? What drives or concerns you most?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Why I Love the Quote by Heinlein
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. -- Robert A. Heinlein
I love this quote because those that love to control others think they are leaders, but what they are really doing is not leadership, but tyranny. Leadership is about winning the right to lead, not manipulating others with dishonesty or power plays.
I love this quote because those that have ideals and define them for others, do a disservice to others, because they do not allow others the right to think and understand what they would choose to believe and what they value and why.
The later type are critical thinkers. They do not take things on face value, therefore, they would ask questions, and investigate to understand another without making assumptions, presumptions and demands based on their understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The idealist would think that the real leader would be those who are so focused on the goal that they see clearly what the "end" is. These understand their vision from pig-headed stubornness, if they are not careful. Whenever something is clear to us, we also need to be aware that others may not see or understand things the same way. This way, communication is valued and negotiation can be closer to reality. And then the vision so clearly seen can be adjusted to take into account all of the "team".
I love this quote because those that love to control others think they are leaders, but what they are really doing is not leadership, but tyranny. Leadership is about winning the right to lead, not manipulating others with dishonesty or power plays.
I love this quote because those that have ideals and define them for others, do a disservice to others, because they do not allow others the right to think and understand what they would choose to believe and what they value and why.
The later type are critical thinkers. They do not take things on face value, therefore, they would ask questions, and investigate to understand another without making assumptions, presumptions and demands based on their understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The idealist would think that the real leader would be those who are so focused on the goal that they see clearly what the "end" is. These understand their vision from pig-headed stubornness, if they are not careful. Whenever something is clear to us, we also need to be aware that others may not see or understand things the same way. This way, communication is valued and negotiation can be closer to reality. And then the vision so clearly seen can be adjusted to take into account all of the "team".
Monday, November 30, 2009
Self Interest, Altruism, and American Freedom
American freedom is provided for many "convictions" of consciences, as we believe in the "rule of law". The religious term conscience according to "Tradition", while the Scientists are seeking a way to maintain "peace" in a diverse and global world. Can altruism be "taught" or "should it be taught"?
I believe that tradition can be formative, but does not have to be. Conscience dwells in man as an innate nature. It is only when there has been a conditioning that has diminished or humiliated another where conscience can be deadened. A deadened conscience can be a reactive response to a lack of acknowledgement. Humans want to be affirmed, as they are social beings, and not just physical beings.
Nazism arose as a reaction to the humiliation of the German nation, after WWI. according to some historians. Hitler's rise to power was the "need" of the German population to have a sense of identity and pride in thier nation. Nationalism was borne on the heels of revenge.
I believe because we are self=identifying individuals, that we must become aware of what our identifiers are and seek negotiation with those that have different identifiying factors. This is in the interest of both parties. I do not believe that self interest is wrong or bad, it just is, and it should be, because without a "self" there is no way of protecting against another taking advantage of the other.
So, recognizing our self=interest, being honest about our values and commitments, and then proceeding to make negotiations when it regards one's public life, is the epitome of freedom.
Altruism, on the other hand, is a scientific undertaking, these days. Scientists want to provide peace and are seeking to understand and/or train people into altruistic goals or purposes. To do this, many think that religion is useful. People that identify with religion usually have poor self development or self esteem or they have been taught that it is selfish to seek self interest. These are pawns in the hands of the unscrupulous. This is when America's laws should provide protection from such"preying hands".
If anyone tells you that they are seeking to "turn your eyes outward", instead of "inward" (as Luther termed "sin"), then run and take an interest in yourself. Otherwise, you will become someone else's training ground.....
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Power Politics and Freedom of Information
Knowledge is power and if you can keep others from knowing what is going on behind the scenes, then the people in the know can thrawt the social contract. I hope there are people aware of what is going on in our country to hold others accountable and not allow power to rule access to knowledge about our nation's business.
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Political Problems Will Always Exist
The news headlines for a few weeks have featured Iran's elections and peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Elections are a "right"in free societies. But, human rights are ignored in regimes that do not want or allow individual freedom of choice. There is a belief in Iran that the elections were rigged. Certain "kidnappings" have occurred to the ones supporting the opposition party, even though the law supports the right to voice difference. Rigged elections do not allow the "voice" to the individual or certain groups that differ in political agenda. This is not an unusual occurance, as power is hard to over-ride in these regimes, as there are no "checks and balances" as in our government.
I have become concerned recently at the large number of powerful posistions that this adminstration has "appointed" without accountability to the electorate. Is this a step to undermine our Constitutional government, as a representative republic?
This morning it was reported that Israel has offended the Palestianians with certain absolute non-negotiables, such as Israel's right to the land granted to them as a state and the right to Jerusalem. It seems that the Palestianians are forced to maintain a tribal identity, as they do not have a nation state that identifies their legitimacy. Personal identity is associated with one's nation, as well as familial culture.
I do not know the answer to this one, as there are conflicting stories about who has the right to Jerusalem and why and where boundaries should be established in maintaining borders between the two peoples. Without a country and home, the Palestianians do not have a "voice". But, terrorism and violence is not the answer or solution to resolve these tensions.
It seems that the persecuted "need" resolution of their denied identity by restitution of those who have limited their identity. This action affirms their "right to life and liberty" and their pursuit of happiness. Many countries granted that right to the Jews in granting them a nation and granting them a right to their own land. How are we to negotiate between two persecuted parties, who continue to persecute the "other"?
Rational choice has been useful in bringing about peace in many instances to conflicting countries, but generations of conflict over interests do nothing to make the way clear for "hearing" the other and compromising or negotiating. Emotions have become attached to certain "bulwarks" of conflict that make these stumbling blocks hard, if not impossible, to overcome.
The real world does not act based on compassion, goodness, and understanding, but on interests. Interests are not "right or wrong", just different. Justice is bringing about a equal hearing and coming to terms with the ultimate issue concerning conflict. Therefore, it behooves all of us to be aware of what our interests are and base our negotiation on what we are willing and unwilling to compromise.
Elections are a "right"in free societies. But, human rights are ignored in regimes that do not want or allow individual freedom of choice. There is a belief in Iran that the elections were rigged. Certain "kidnappings" have occurred to the ones supporting the opposition party, even though the law supports the right to voice difference. Rigged elections do not allow the "voice" to the individual or certain groups that differ in political agenda. This is not an unusual occurance, as power is hard to over-ride in these regimes, as there are no "checks and balances" as in our government.
I have become concerned recently at the large number of powerful posistions that this adminstration has "appointed" without accountability to the electorate. Is this a step to undermine our Constitutional government, as a representative republic?
This morning it was reported that Israel has offended the Palestianians with certain absolute non-negotiables, such as Israel's right to the land granted to them as a state and the right to Jerusalem. It seems that the Palestianians are forced to maintain a tribal identity, as they do not have a nation state that identifies their legitimacy. Personal identity is associated with one's nation, as well as familial culture.
I do not know the answer to this one, as there are conflicting stories about who has the right to Jerusalem and why and where boundaries should be established in maintaining borders between the two peoples. Without a country and home, the Palestianians do not have a "voice". But, terrorism and violence is not the answer or solution to resolve these tensions.
It seems that the persecuted "need" resolution of their denied identity by restitution of those who have limited their identity. This action affirms their "right to life and liberty" and their pursuit of happiness. Many countries granted that right to the Jews in granting them a nation and granting them a right to their own land. How are we to negotiate between two persecuted parties, who continue to persecute the "other"?
Rational choice has been useful in bringing about peace in many instances to conflicting countries, but generations of conflict over interests do nothing to make the way clear for "hearing" the other and compromising or negotiating. Emotions have become attached to certain "bulwarks" of conflict that make these stumbling blocks hard, if not impossible, to overcome.
The real world does not act based on compassion, goodness, and understanding, but on interests. Interests are not "right or wrong", just different. Justice is bringing about a equal hearing and coming to terms with the ultimate issue concerning conflict. Therefore, it behooves all of us to be aware of what our interests are and base our negotiation on what we are willing and unwilling to compromise.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Ideal on Earth Will Bring Defeat
I am beginning to think that any attempt to create an "ideal" or "utopia", will end in defeat and much suffering. But, pragmatism is functioning in the real world, with "real world" solutions, which is what philosopher kings do in formulating policy. The battle of ideas within our nation's think-tanks, in the halls of Congress and in the judicial chambers, all must go into the mix of the "stuff' of reality in the real world.
Historically, we have seen much suffering come from Hitler or Mussolinni's facism, or Stalin's communism. These ideological frames of political functioning are based on racism, economics, or government. All of these forms are not our form and should not be seen or understood as necessary policy.
There has been discussion whether a minority rights law should continue to be renewed, as it protects the rights of minoirities in discrimination, as to the job market. Others have thought that the time for unions is over, as our economy changes. All of these laws and policies are understood within the larger frame of what kind of policy will express our government in today's globalization, while furthering our needs for diplomatic relations.
Self interest is not a bad thing, it is only when policy has been decided without any consideration and/or input from those who will be impacted. This is only acting justly and we should value ourselves as a just nation. Even with good intentions, America has been misunderstood, when others have miscontrued our intent, with abuse of power. Although we have not, nor can we act completely free from self-interest, our self-interest has to be revealed, while acknowledging to the other what would benefit them in the treaty or at negotiation stage. This is just good diplomacy as it behaves respectfully toward the other nation.
What do we do with situations that undermine treaty, or does not breed trust when it concerns foreign policy? This is a good question for Obama and his cabinet to consider in his new open government policy.
I will be looking forward to hearing about it!
Historically, we have seen much suffering come from Hitler or Mussolinni's facism, or Stalin's communism. These ideological frames of political functioning are based on racism, economics, or government. All of these forms are not our form and should not be seen or understood as necessary policy.
There has been discussion whether a minority rights law should continue to be renewed, as it protects the rights of minoirities in discrimination, as to the job market. Others have thought that the time for unions is over, as our economy changes. All of these laws and policies are understood within the larger frame of what kind of policy will express our government in today's globalization, while furthering our needs for diplomatic relations.
Self interest is not a bad thing, it is only when policy has been decided without any consideration and/or input from those who will be impacted. This is only acting justly and we should value ourselves as a just nation. Even with good intentions, America has been misunderstood, when others have miscontrued our intent, with abuse of power. Although we have not, nor can we act completely free from self-interest, our self-interest has to be revealed, while acknowledging to the other what would benefit them in the treaty or at negotiation stage. This is just good diplomacy as it behaves respectfully toward the other nation.
What do we do with situations that undermine treaty, or does not breed trust when it concerns foreign policy? This is a good question for Obama and his cabinet to consider in his new open government policy.
I will be looking forward to hearing about it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
