[From Bill Powers (940823.0815 MDT)]
Rick Marken (949822.2100 MDT) --
Once the conflict is identified and agreed on (as an actual conflict)
perhaps we could see if a dialog, informed by an understanding of the
adverseries as hierarchically organized control systems, could lead to
reasonable agreement, with Bill P. acting as the PCT "umpire". This
would be a nice way to see if the "method of levels" could be applied
by the mediator in a conflict. Bill P. could act as the PCT
depolarizer.
You really want to make it tough for me, don't you? After I have been
spouting off on the side opposed to Bill Leach, he's supposed to accept
me as a mediator? In order to do what you say, I would have to get rid
of all my prejudices and preconceptions (Shazam!) and settle into a
mind-reading mode where I cease to care about the outcome and want only
to see a resolution. Perhaps that's possible, who knows?
But a bigger problem is whether anyone really wants to see any
particular one of these conflicts resolved. When a person goes into
psychotherapy, I imagine that it's usually because of an internal
conflict which is very painful and debilitating; the person has reached
the stage where anything would be better than suffering the conflict any
further. When two people are involved in a conflict, however, what is
there that would lead either one to risk giving up a strongly-held point
of view? Is the conflict of ideas between you and Bill Leach so painful
to either of you that each of you would rather modify your views about
gun control, the role of government, environmentalism, and so forth
rather than continue to disagree with other?
The parties involved in any conflict have to have some reason to want to
resolve it, knowing that doing so may leave them holding different views
from what they hold now. This is the first barrier that has to be
overcome in any conflict resolution, inter- or intrapersonal. When this
process is finished, will I still be me? What will happen to all the
things I value if I end up changing my mind about anything?
Obviously, trying to resolve a conflict at the level of the conflict --
marshalling new arguments, new facts -- will only expand it, because
each party will select arguments and facts that support one view but not
the other. The only resolution that can occur requires going up a level,
one or more. Mary and I were just talking about conflicts in the Senate,
where the question is rapidly becoming whether the Senate itself can
continue as a functioning body. If the senators could go up a level,
they would become concerned with the welfare of the institution, and see
that perpetuating the conflicts on specific subjects may well destroy
everyone's ability to accomplish anything. According to an article in
the latest New Yorker, there were 13 filibusters in the 19th century, 50
in the first half of the 20th, and 200 in the second half. At some point
the filibuster will make conflict resolution in the senate impossible,
because it changes the basic concept of majority rule. So which is then
more important: to makes one's own point of view prevail, or to preserve
the system that makes having a point of view pertinent at all?
So, is there any reason for either party here to want to resolve this
conflict between important convictions?
ยทยทยท
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.
