Comments on: Beyond rules and guidelines http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/ Explorations in evolving the understanding, living, and teaching of Nonviolent Communication Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:30:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Ged http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-454 Ged Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:06:02 +0000 http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-454 I have been thinking about this post (the origional one). It seems to me that someone is trying to set up rules, in order to serve life/meet needs. This litigious strategy instantly stimulated an uneasy feeling in me. I thought; "Well we are NVC people, we dont need rules because we have the ability to voice what is alive in us in a non-violent way... rules or laws are outdated/redundant for us" There is no way of knowing exactly what gets stimulated in others, but if we can voice what is alive in us then we can connect and play in a fun way. It seems that the litigious spirit or the use of rules is needed in a group of people who do not/can not connect with each other, therefore to gauge whether actions are meeting needs instead of connecting with others one connects with his thoughts and beliefs (morals/ethics) or his law book (rules/laws). Not only does this not meet the need for connection and growth but the disconnection would (and does) result in people acting in ways that cause harm to others as they dont get the feedback required to trigger the need to help/enrich life (and thus not harm others.) Also it opens people up to maipulation by the law-makers. And is usually enforced by a retributive justice system (punishing those who break the laws.) Such things of cause are required in a dominative system. Think "devide and conquer". One alternative to this would be of cause "facilitate connection". :) I have been thinking about this post (the origional one).
It seems to me that someone is trying to set up rules, in order to serve life/meet needs.
This litigious strategy instantly stimulated an uneasy feeling in me.

I thought;
“Well we are NVC people, we dont need rules because we have the ability to voice what is alive in us in a non-violent way… rules or laws are outdated/redundant for us”

There is no way of knowing exactly what gets stimulated in others, but if we can voice what is alive in us then we can connect and play in a fun way.

It seems that the litigious spirit or the use of rules is needed in a group of people who do not/can not connect with each other, therefore to gauge whether actions are meeting needs instead of connecting with others one connects with his thoughts and beliefs (morals/ethics) or his law book (rules/laws).

Not only does this not meet the need for connection and growth but the disconnection would (and does) result in people acting in ways that cause harm to others as they dont get the feedback required to trigger the need to help/enrich life (and thus not harm others.)
Also it opens people up to maipulation by the law-makers.
And is usually enforced by a retributive justice system (punishing those who break the laws.)

Such things of cause are required in a dominative system. Think “devide and conquer”.

One alternative to this would be of cause “facilitate connection”.

:)

]]> By: thurid umbach http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-283 thurid umbach Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:36:03 +0000 http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-283 Dear all, when I read the article beyond rules and guidelines, what hit me most was the idea of missing out the points of possible change by avoiding clashes of rules or people, when trying to regulate any "game" in advance. I loved the idea that the moments of disagreement and discussion are the creative ones, the ones where we might open our hearts and listen to what they have to tell us and others about what we need NOW ( and not at some point in the future or the past). I think Emma's wonderful image of stepping on each other's toes in order to find out about other people's and our own feet goes in a similar direction. Thank you! What I believe is a major problem with rules altogether, although they might be quite helpful once you know them: Rules have the power to make people afraid - afraid of not being able to know, understand or follow them. And fright is quite a powerful weapon against any kind of playful creativity. Once you allow to question those rules, you will find that it opens a field of exciting interaction and contact with those around you. How often do we sacrifice this opportunity for the sake of what we sometimes call efficiency? by the way: what does "woot" mean? My knowledge of the English language deserted me at that point ;-) Dear all,
when I read the article beyond rules and guidelines, what hit me most was the idea of missing out the points of possible change by avoiding clashes of rules or people, when trying to regulate any “game” in advance. I loved the idea that the moments of disagreement and discussion are the creative ones, the ones where we might open our hearts and listen to what they have to tell us and others about what we need NOW ( and not at some point in the future or the past). I think Emma’s wonderful image of stepping on each other’s toes in order to find out about other people’s and our own feet goes in a similar direction. Thank you!
What I believe is a major problem with rules altogether, although they might be quite helpful once you know them: Rules have the power to make people afraid - afraid of not being able to know, understand or follow them. And fright is quite a powerful weapon against any kind of playful creativity. Once you allow to question those rules, you will find that it opens a field of exciting interaction and contact with those around you. How often do we sacrifice this opportunity for the sake of what we sometimes call efficiency?

by the way: what does “woot” mean? My knowledge of the English language deserted me at that point ;-)

]]> By: conal http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-136 conal Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:54:05 +0000 http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-136 Hi Emma :) Thanks for the game-playing perspective and chiming in in defense of rules of play. I like your distinction between active and passive relationship to rules. I'm a little alarmed with: <blockquote> I recognized that if I wanted to play the game, the game came with those rules. </blockquote> I guess I imagine an unspoken belief that if there are rules in place when I arrive then I don't get to participate in their evolution, perhaps in some long-awaited change. One of my heroes is my daughter Charlotte, who cheats at games regularly. If I haven't played with her for a while, I'll forget what a naughty cheating fiend she is. I'll foolishly assume she's leaving the written and assumed rules unchallenged, as I and other nice people do. Or when I remember, then part of the game for me becomes keeping a sharp eye on her and trying to catch her in the act. Meanwhile, I'm inspired to cheat as well and not get caught, which helps me break out of my limiting self-image and assumptions. And we have a great laugh! Progress -- evolution -- <em>depends</em> on breaking rules. Put more mildly, Adlai E. Stevenson said <blockquote> All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions. </blockquote> I think you & I are on the same page: "active participation", rather than the old "submit/argue/withdraw options". Like you, I also enjoy a set of rules that I consciously choose and see value in, to define a space in which to create. For instance, I love Twitter's 140 character limit, or a conference proceedings' 12 page limit, or Marshall's limits of 40 words to convey OFNR and only five words about the past. I love math and severely pure programming paradigms. And I love creating new rules when I want to play elsewhere. Best wishes with the toe stepping & resulting connections! Woot! Hi Emma :)

Thanks for the game-playing perspective and chiming in in defense of rules of play. I like your distinction between active and passive relationship to rules.

I’m a little alarmed with:

I recognized that if I wanted to play the game, the game came with those rules.

I guess I imagine an unspoken belief that if there are rules in place when I arrive then I don’t get to participate in their evolution, perhaps in some long-awaited change.

One of my heroes is my daughter Charlotte, who cheats at games regularly. If I haven’t played with her for a while, I’ll forget what a naughty cheating fiend she is. I’ll foolishly assume she’s leaving the written and assumed rules unchallenged, as I and other nice people do. Or when I remember, then part of the game for me becomes keeping a sharp eye on her and trying to catch her in the act. Meanwhile, I’m inspired to cheat as well and not get caught, which helps me break out of my limiting self-image and assumptions. And we have a great laugh!

Progress — evolution — depends on breaking rules. Put more mildly, Adlai E. Stevenson said

All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.

I think you & I are on the same page: “active participation”, rather than the old “submit/argue/withdraw options”.

Like you, I also enjoy a set of rules that I consciously choose and see value in, to define a space in which to create. For instance, I love Twitter’s 140 character limit, or a conference proceedings’ 12 page limit, or Marshall’s limits of 40 words to convey OFNR and only five words about the past. I love math and severely pure programming paradigms. And I love creating new rules when I want to play elsewhere.

Best wishes with the toe stepping & resulting connections!

Woot!

]]> By: Emma McCreary http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-135 Emma McCreary Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:18:13 +0000 http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/beyond-rules-and-guidelines/#comment-135 Yeah! So one thought I have is if you think of a game - there are "rules", because everyone wants to be playing the same game. The difference is there is agreement - everybody says at the beginning "yes, I want to play that game with those rules". There are times when I've agreed to rules that I would never normally agree to because I recognized that if I wanted to play the game, the game came with those rules. And the rules did inform the game, they were purposeful. The created a container within which to play. Without them, there would be no game. And I enjoyed the game, so I agreed to the rules, without resentment or anything. So, there is something about consent and choice that goes into it. If you don't have any guidelines, you don't meet needs for order and structure and predictability. If one person makes all the rules, you don't meet needs for autonomy and whatever needs weren't thought of by that one person. So I don't want to throw out the whole idea of rules. But I want to change how we think of rules. How we interact with them. One thing I notice in our culture is that we are taught to be passive. A person suggest a rule, and we follow along. That was my first response to the "Don't use the NVC word" guideline on CNVC's site. I thought "That's dumb", but I didn't even consider really to not do it. Because from my cultural training, that's rebellion. It's not creative. It's silly, immature, lots of things that domination culture says about people who don't follow rules. But you reframed it for me. So changing this pattern means we have to get ourselves out of the submit/argue/withdraw options and act in a new way: active participation. I see the willingness to participate, to dialog, to get involved and get messy with each other as something we can all learn, practice, and promote that will make alternative-to-rules culture work and grow. Right now I'm unlearning perfectionism and learning to jump in, mess up, make mistakes, step on people's toes accidentally so we can have a conversation about where their toes are and where my foot is. Unlearning passivity. Woot! Yeah!

So one thought I have is if you think of a game - there are “rules”, because everyone wants to be playing the same game. The difference is there is agreement - everybody says at the beginning “yes, I want to play that game with those rules”. There are times when I’ve agreed to rules that I would never normally agree to because I recognized that if I wanted to play the game, the game came with those rules. And the rules did inform the game, they were purposeful. The created a container within which to play. Without them, there would be no game. And I enjoyed the game, so I agreed to the rules, without resentment or anything.

So, there is something about consent and choice that goes into it.

If you don’t have any guidelines, you don’t meet needs for order and structure and predictability. If one person makes all the rules, you don’t meet needs for autonomy and whatever needs weren’t thought of by that one person. So I don’t want to throw out the whole idea of rules. But I want to change how we think of rules. How we interact with them.

One thing I notice in our culture is that we are taught to be passive. A person suggest a rule, and we follow along. That was my first response to the “Don’t use the NVC word” guideline on CNVC’s site. I thought “That’s dumb”, but I didn’t even consider really to not do it. Because from my cultural training, that’s rebellion. It’s not creative. It’s silly, immature, lots of things that domination culture says about people who don’t follow rules. But you reframed it for me.

So changing this pattern means we have to get ourselves out of the submit/argue/withdraw options and act in a new way: active participation. I see the willingness to participate, to dialog, to get involved and get messy with each other as something we can all learn, practice, and promote that will make alternative-to-rules culture work and grow.

Right now I’m unlearning perfectionism and learning to jump in, mess up, make mistakes, step on people’s toes accidentally so we can have a conversation about where their toes are and where my foot is. Unlearning passivity.

Woot!

]]>