When a human passionately defends a stance on any particular subject but refuses to discuss in depth, why are they so attached? Can they not explain why? If they do not have a cognitive understanding as to why, then they must have a qualitative attraction or aversion triggering them in a particular way.
Is it the need to belong? Or something else?
Are you disagreeing or agreeing just to belong? Have you seen others do this? How do we even know this?
What happens to a discussion when the subtext averts the need to listen and understand one another?
How do we have an authentic discussion in which our belonging is not at stake?
Why would our identity get in the way of understanding another’s perspective?
Tribalism is alive and well as we discuss from different tribes rather than from a foundation of connection?
How can we create discussions on difficult topics a collaborative exercise?
What is at stake when we have a discussion? Our reputation, position, promotion, public opinion, etc?
What if we were to create a meta story that allowed us to feel a sense of belonging to the earth in union and collaboration with every being upon it?
Would be be able to have an authentic discussion then?
Comments