I have been reflecting lately that whenever we encounter difficulties in life, there are various levels of solutioning that we can attempt. One is to "solve" or "resolve" the issue in some way through some kind of fix or "lesson learned". For instance, we often ask ourselves, what lesson did I learn from this difficult situation, and what can I do better going forward? I think this is a bit like trying to use a cork to stop a hole in a bucket. We can stop that particular issue from happening again, but of course there is no guarantee that we won't encounter a similar situation that has different nuances or consequences to it. A problem-solution orientation aligns well with a technical/rational model of education, which suggests that every problem has a solution that can be gauged through changed attitudes or behaviors.
A second level of encountering difficulties is to negotiate a way around a conflict, such as through compromise or communication. This is usually what happens in therapy or when we bring up a grievance in front of an arbitrator. This level acknowledges that problems don't necessarily have unilateral solutions that satisfy every need there is. Knowing that most problems are relational in nature, we seek compromises that maximize the outcome for everyone with as little sacrifice as possible. This is similar to a transactional model of education which relies heavily on dialogue and cognitive reframing to achieve workable solutions.
The third level is more transformative or holistic in nature, and that is, to ask ourselves how the problem can be used break down the barrier of self and other. This involves transforming the way we think about self, to the point where we let go of attachment to a single self or point of view. Here, the goal is not to arrive at a tangible solution, but rather to use the experience as a way of seeing beyond the limitations of a subject-object perspective. Difficulties, according to this view, are invitations to wake up to the fact that we are not separate from what we perceive: there isn't a subject who is overseeing or controlling the unfolding present. It's only when we turn inward to the source of our perceptions that we can soften and loosen the need to always control situations. Thoughts and "issues" are seen as only one part of an infinitely changing and unfolding present moment that does not have a beginning or an end, that is timeless, and encompasses being.
All of these "levels" are essential to living well in the world, but I think the third option is the deepest way of looking at our problems, which allows us to be less reactive and more immersed in the present moment. But it's through the clarity of the third level that we can better assess how we can compromise to achieve harmony of views (second level) and how to most efficiently solve a problem (first level). The three work together in the optimal situation.
Humans are creatures of habit. Because of this “inherent nature,” people use it to predict and judge others—especially in extraordinary situations. Even “inaction” reveals a choice.
ReplyDeleteYet, it is still difficult to truly know a person. The complexity of human nature is evident in this. But so what? Driven by our social instincts, people continue to love and hurt each other, sometimes over nothing more than an idea.
When I see people debating recklessly, I often wonder—are they willing to fight for this belief, even to the point of risking their lives? I believe that such things come with a “price” and “consequences.” Without that, it all feels weightless, as if it means nothing at all.