Quotes and Wisdom
from the Top of the Mind™
from the Top of the Mind™
Arguments #2
"You can not have an argument with a fully conscious person."
I know that upon reading this seemingly simplistic statement, many might react with confusion, or even clear disagreement. This is understandable and, given that my purpose here isn't to start an argument, let's look a little deeper into the meaning of this statement to see how it might serve us in creating the life we want.
First, let's honor the message behind the original statement. This is another idea taken from Eckhart Tolle's book, "The Power of Now," where he does quite a nice job of speaking to the value of staying present (and in the present) as a way of life. In fact, he goes on to suggest that all of our anxiety, frustration, anger, etc., is a product of our identification with either the past or the future. While I'm not sure that I agree with the totality of that statement, I do think it's easy to see how most of our arguments are created and sustained around "what should have been done" in the past, or "what should be done" in the future.
Mr. Tolle then goes on to expand this time-based perspective to suggest that the only time we can be conscious is now. Thus, he suggests that if we are engaged in an argument about the past or the future where we are invested in a particular position, and either defending ourselves or attacking another, we are by definition "unconscious." The challenge in understanding this perspective is to avoid thinking of the word "unconscious" as a medical term, but rather as a state of present-moment awareness (or lack thereof).
This, interestingly enough, fits very nicely with my "Life from the Top of the Mind" perspective. If you have been following this thread, you know that I believe that our stress, anxiety, frustration, anger, etc., is the result of an interaction between our limbic system and our brainstem. When incoming data is perceived by our limbic system as a threat, this results in the triggering of a fight-or-flight reaction by our brainstem. We then attempt to address the situation from this reactive, hypertensive state, and because we are not accessing our best thinking, interpersonal skills, creativity, etc., we are generally less than successful. The result of this lack of success is increased stress, anxiety, frustration, anger, which, of course, the limbic system perceives as even more of a threat, and the process of downshifting (from our limbic system to our brainstem) is repeated and the cycle of stress, frustration, is created.
This fits with Mr. Tolle's perspective in that neither of us believe this is done consciously, or, as I like to say in my presentations, none of this is done "on purpose." Further, we both believe that if one is conscious or aware, it is impossible to have an argument with this person. Why? Because as I have mentioned, an argument in this context isn't just a disagreement. It is a process of engaging another with the need to convince them of the righteousness of our perspective.
What is ironic here is that 99% of the time, the result is exactly the opposite! When we argue with another, what generally happens is that they put a tremendous amount of energy into validating their perspective and invalidating ours and defending the very behavior we want them to change. Therefore, a conscious or aware person would never participate in this sort of interchange because 1) they would never want to experience the resentment and anger so common to most arguments, and 2) they would never choose to participate in an exchange that encouraged the other to defend an opposing position with increasing vehemence.
What might they do? They might listen to the other's perspective to discover what is driving their resistance. Then they might use this driver to move the discussion in a more productive direction. In other words, they might be willing to stay connected without being engaged in an argument, and thus become instrumental in the other shifting from his or her reactive/unconscious, resistant brain, to a more conscious, purposeful, receptive perspective.
Another option, depending on their investment in the relationship, would be to just walk away. This, of course, has the potential to be very frustrating to the person who wants to argue, and should never be done to incite this frustration (a passive-aggressive move). However, it could certainly be good information for those who to love to argue. In other words, if every time they tried to argue, the other person just smiled and walked away, I would bet that they would eventually grow tired of this result, and choose a different tact.
In any case, this is less about what others do, and more about who we wish to be...now and in the future. Do we wish to be someone whom others can goad into an argument? Do we wish to be someone who motivates others to defend their position? Do we wish to be someone who joins others in their unconsciousness, and thus shares in the ever-increasing emotions of frustration, anger, and resentment, or do we wish to engage our aware, conscious, purposeful self to life and then engage others from this perspective? The choice, of course, is ours . . . but only if we can stay conscious enough to make it.
First, let's honor the message behind the original statement. This is another idea taken from Eckhart Tolle's book, "The Power of Now," where he does quite a nice job of speaking to the value of staying present (and in the present) as a way of life. In fact, he goes on to suggest that all of our anxiety, frustration, anger, etc., is a product of our identification with either the past or the future. While I'm not sure that I agree with the totality of that statement, I do think it's easy to see how most of our arguments are created and sustained around "what should have been done" in the past, or "what should be done" in the future.
Mr. Tolle then goes on to expand this time-based perspective to suggest that the only time we can be conscious is now. Thus, he suggests that if we are engaged in an argument about the past or the future where we are invested in a particular position, and either defending ourselves or attacking another, we are by definition "unconscious." The challenge in understanding this perspective is to avoid thinking of the word "unconscious" as a medical term, but rather as a state of present-moment awareness (or lack thereof).
This, interestingly enough, fits very nicely with my "Life from the Top of the Mind" perspective. If you have been following this thread, you know that I believe that our stress, anxiety, frustration, anger, etc., is the result of an interaction between our limbic system and our brainstem. When incoming data is perceived by our limbic system as a threat, this results in the triggering of a fight-or-flight reaction by our brainstem. We then attempt to address the situation from this reactive, hypertensive state, and because we are not accessing our best thinking, interpersonal skills, creativity, etc., we are generally less than successful. The result of this lack of success is increased stress, anxiety, frustration, anger, which, of course, the limbic system perceives as even more of a threat, and the process of downshifting (from our limbic system to our brainstem) is repeated and the cycle of stress, frustration, is created.
This fits with Mr. Tolle's perspective in that neither of us believe this is done consciously, or, as I like to say in my presentations, none of this is done "on purpose." Further, we both believe that if one is conscious or aware, it is impossible to have an argument with this person. Why? Because as I have mentioned, an argument in this context isn't just a disagreement. It is a process of engaging another with the need to convince them of the righteousness of our perspective.
What is ironic here is that 99% of the time, the result is exactly the opposite! When we argue with another, what generally happens is that they put a tremendous amount of energy into validating their perspective and invalidating ours and defending the very behavior we want them to change. Therefore, a conscious or aware person would never participate in this sort of interchange because 1) they would never want to experience the resentment and anger so common to most arguments, and 2) they would never choose to participate in an exchange that encouraged the other to defend an opposing position with increasing vehemence.
What might they do? They might listen to the other's perspective to discover what is driving their resistance. Then they might use this driver to move the discussion in a more productive direction. In other words, they might be willing to stay connected without being engaged in an argument, and thus become instrumental in the other shifting from his or her reactive/unconscious, resistant brain, to a more conscious, purposeful, receptive perspective.
Another option, depending on their investment in the relationship, would be to just walk away. This, of course, has the potential to be very frustrating to the person who wants to argue, and should never be done to incite this frustration (a passive-aggressive move). However, it could certainly be good information for those who to love to argue. In other words, if every time they tried to argue, the other person just smiled and walked away, I would bet that they would eventually grow tired of this result, and choose a different tact.
In any case, this is less about what others do, and more about who we wish to be...now and in the future. Do we wish to be someone whom others can goad into an argument? Do we wish to be someone who motivates others to defend their position? Do we wish to be someone who joins others in their unconsciousness, and thus shares in the ever-increasing emotions of frustration, anger, and resentment, or do we wish to engage our aware, conscious, purposeful self to life and then engage others from this perspective? The choice, of course, is ours . . . but only if we can stay conscious enough to make it.
Take care and God bless, Dr. Bill