How can I contribute less to polarising the world?

There are some things that I have “known” intellectually only  for a long time. Some of them I have read or heard about and thought: “That makes a lot of sense.” Yet a lot of these things only really take effect on my life when they settle further down in my awareness and click into place on an emotional level. I am not always sure about how this happens and if I have any influence on it. Sometimes this process surprises me very quietly.

What does a “but” really mean?

One such realisation is this: Whenever we say something followed by a but, we cancel what was said before. For example “I am not XY, but…” or “I do like XY, but…” Often we do not actually mean to cancel the XY. In other cases the “but” gives away what we really would have liked to say. Either way, this does not exactly establish a solid relationship or boost an existing one. And our relationships are what communication is ultimately about. 

One easily feasible alternative was my takeaway from an interesting talk. Whenever you feel the impulse to say “yes, but”, try saying “yes, and” instead or maybe “yes, at the same time”. This recognises what the other person and I have in common instead of emphasising our differences. Back then, I thought this was very plausible and mentally helpful and planned to use it in conversations just to see what would happen.

Living in polarising times

Then came the pandemic, and it cannot be just me who notices a lot of polarisation and actual as well as apparent contradictions. So many fierce debates, so many relationships in danger of breaking over different world views. 

In my coaching training I was deeply affected by a method called the Tetralemma. It is designed to loosen emotional and mental blockages that seem to prevent a decision. Two apparently opposing objects, situations or stances are repeatedly circled around, compared and combined in a way that on a meta level creates a new perspective that excludes neither the one or the other and feels surprisingly relieving.

Sounds like Buddhist philosophy? That’s because it is. Funnily enough, my usual reaction to anything Zen is to not want to invest too much of my time and energy in it. So what? Not this but also not that? And how am I supposed to not do this “Not”? And also not want to not do it? Without not doing nothing? This way of thinking exhausts the cognitive parts of my brain. Which it is meant to and if I do not pay attention for long enough, this method really works 😉 

The Zen of Douglas Adams

Ot to put it another way: It is all a bit like the instructions on how to learn to fly in the five-volume Hitchhiker trilogy by Douglas Adams. 

“The Guide says there is an art to flying”, said Ford, “or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

Most of us would think it to be an amazing feat to distract the thinking brain effectively for the time it takes to fly past it. Arthur Dent, the novel’s protagonist, actually does learn to fly, even if not intentionally. He misses the ground when he stumbles trying to escape a monster, because at the right moment he is distracted by a piece of luggage he lost at the other end of the galaxy a few years ago.

On the 2nd of February I signed a contract with myself for the coming year 2022. One part of it was the promise to keep an awareness for “yes but” situations in my day-today life and switching the phrase to “at the same time”. In the beginning this was a bit like using training wheels, at the same time the internal effect was fascinating. It is a bit like sliding two transparent images on top of each other. Both images can be clearly discerned and at the same time they add up to something new. They merge and at the same time neither of them dissolves into the other. Both can exist and neither is arbitrary.

Where is this long lost piece of luggage when we need it?

So how can I make such a helpful realisation percolate into deeper layers of my consciousness or even click into place? It seems that one part of the trick might be to be as unintentional as possible, another one of my specialities. At the same time, it helps to practice an attitude that appreciates simultaneousness, as well as has a clear view on where whateverism begins. A view on which opinions and behaviours are outside of what we will accept as respectable.

The clearer we are about our boundaries, the more thoroughly we define and know our own values and positions, the bigger and softer a space we can afford others or also the apparent fractures and contradictions within our own Inner Team. And the more enriching the simultaneousness can be. Since going through the Tetralemma process a few times, both as a coach and a coachee, some aspects of my personality, the ones who are less strictly stuck to the thinking mind, have definitely caught the bug. 

And one day I will give the advanced Tetralemma steps a go in those “yes but” situations: “Neither of these” and “not even this”. One day when I am really feeling up to a bit of Zen. Until then, the “at the same time” approach will make my life a lot easier.

What do you think?

What are your experiences with the phrases “yes and” or “yes but”? Have you used the Tetralemma method yet? How do you usually handle real or apparent contradictions? And how do you help realisations trickle down from the cognitive level so they anchor in your emotional consciousness from where they can really affect your life?

Looking at the world, I sometimes tend to worry about humankind, nature and our future. To not tilt towards this worry too much I deliberately frequent several Good News outlets and have put „Factfulness“ on my pile of books to read.

Still I sometimes experience dialogues like:

„Did you catch the report on the horrible number of accidents in meat packing?“

„Yes, but in general the average safety stats in industrial jobs have been improving significantly during the last couple of decades. For example, in chemical plants the accidents numbers have plummeted.“

Or the other way around:

„It‘s actually quite uplifting, how during this shutdown families can spend so much more time together.“

„Yeah, except for those rising cases of domestic violence, those people are suffering so much more now.“

At some stage I asked myself what exactly was it about these situations that frustrated me so much. Both people involved felt the need to „even out“ the other one‘s perpective. To show them that their point of view did not include the whole of reality. As a result I did not feel heard or taken seriously and it seemed like my worries were just brushed aside. Apparently brushing something aside and evening it out are not at all the same thing on an emotional level.

Neither the positive nor the pessimistic outlook show the complete picture. Whenever people with different tendencies of looking at the world communicate, it is possible that both will be triggered into explaining how from where they stand the picture is skewed. Assuming that the other one even intended to make a statement on the entirety of the situation. Also forgetting to try and stand next to the other to have a look at things from their position. Or at least asking questions.

So these two people end up pulling back and forth a picture which after all may not even be in need of levelling. By the way, the polarity of optimistic/pessimistic is interchangeable with other perpective dualities: Zoomed in/big picture, progressive/conservative, parent/childless person, surely you will be able to come up with more examples.

At the next opportunity after my realisation I communicated my need for the other to just offer me a short confirmation that something really is sad or annoying without buts or whatifs. Just a „Yes, this really is sad.“ Which turned out to not be a problem, because accidents and violence genuinely are sad. The intuitive assumption that confirming emotions perceived as negative would only serve to intensify an angry or sad mood was not found to be true in recent studies: When people were given the impression that others understood their anger, their negative feelings did not change but their positive feelings were stabilised. If on the other hand the anger was dimissed as inappropriate, the negative feelings did not change either but the positive ones decreased.

In addition, me recognising that something is positive is a nice experience for the optimist. Of course more time to spend together and sinking accident figures actually are a good thing. Even optimists do enjoy some validation every now and then.

And so balance was achieved. Even if it turned out to be a different screw that had to be turned. As soon as two persons fulfill each other‘s needs to be seen and validated it does not matter anymore how much or even if the picture is skewed at all. Because it‘s the relationship that gets balanced in the process. Because like this we spend less time measuring a frame with two different protractors and more time standing next to each other, taking in the actual image content. Relaxed in the knowledge that the other person is just as open to try on my point of view and to validate it without any but and any straightening attempts.

Or to look at it via the proverbial glass with the drink level at half the way up: The question whether the glass is half full or half empty is less interesting than our readiness to see each other at eye level.

What about you?

How about you, have you ever felt the urge to make adjustments to somebody else‘s statement about the world? How do you feel when you voice your feelings only to receive a „but“ for a reply? How would it feel to just validate the other‘s point of view or to have yours validated? What would it be like next time to experience someone else‘s worldview without taking out a spirit level? I hope you are going to have a relaxing time next time you are looking for balance.

During the year 2020, I found myself with a lot of unexpected free time on my hands. Some of it I invested in regularly listening to the podcast „Wisdom of the Sages“. What fascinated me  about it was mostly the way Raghunath and Kaustubha interacted with each other and how they talked about the world, every now and then offering amazing nuggets of their own wisdom inspired by reading out the Srimad Baghavatam and answering listeners‘ questions every Saturday. One of those nuggets I found especially touching even though I am not sure in which episode it came up.

What I do remember is that the conversation was about how we deal with the suffering we see in the world. This is something I have been struggling with for a long time and I always found it difficult to find a middle way between a retreat (with the resulting loneliness) and directly facing the world (with the risk of wearing myself our emotionally). It seemed like the choice between living inside a thick shell and opening myself up to being hurt, neither one an attractive prospect. In the end, this question decides if we are able to take action against grievances or if we tend to turn away from the suffering of others.

Raghunath‘s answer was:

„Dont isolate yourself, insulate yourself.“

Which fascinated me immediately, because on the one hand the English original was immediately obvious to me, while on the other hand the nuance between the two related verbs does not work in my native language German.

Different meanings in German and in English

Insulation literally means using a covering material to prevent heat, electricity, sound similar things from touching something sensitive towards those influences. Isolation means spatial separation. One of the verbs emphasizes the protective aspect, the other the distance in between two objects or beings. In German both verbs are translated as „isolieren“. This realisation gave me a tangible lightbulb moment and was likely the reason I kept pondering this quote in the days and weeks afterwards.

What did Raghunath mean? In light of the state the world is in, nobody is going to benefit from me withdrawing and living as a hermit. But staying permanently open to outside influences like a naked wire is just as unsustainable a solution. What helps, metaphorically speaking, is a suitable coating, that helps me stay in contact with the world without being overwhelmed. Or as Raghunath put it: I don‘t go out in the cold of winter only wearing a T-shirt, but that does not mean I am condemned to only stay indoors. As long as I wear a pullover that offers just the right amount of thermal insulation. Not to much, not too little and on top of that: Much more flexible and it keeps me warmer than a knight‘s armour.

Humans are very different in their constitutions and their needs. And individual persons are not always on the same energy level or in the same mood either, just like the world around them does not always look the same. So the nature of any appropriate coating will depend on your personality and on your state of mind on the day in question. And we all will have to find individual strategies to properly insulate ourselves.

I have no real answer for what exactly my new insulation is made of. What I am sure of is that the year 2020 (together with this quote from one of my most frequently listened to podcasts) has given me significant emotional relief. At first glance the sentence may look a bit trivial, but for me just the process of hearing it had the effect of a key that had been stuck in a lock finally being turned.

What about you?

What about you, how easy is it for you to strike a balance between unfiltered interaction with the world and withdrawing from the suffering you see around you? What would an adequate coating consist of for you? How much would the proper amount of insulation make it easier for you to take an active approach to grievances without them emotionally impacting you too heavily? How does Rhagunath‘s saying inspire your thoughts?