On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Michael McMaster wrote:
> and before they knew it, they had a common ground.
>
> The common ground was provided by someone who could be present to both
> sides and include them both and not marginalize or "make wrong" either
> side. My own interpretation is that this is extremely powerful because it
> is manifest in one person and therefore seen as possible for any person.
This is the kind of communication behaviour that we teach people in our
seminars, and is part of what I call cooperative communication. Just one
comment, though. The fact that one applies one's own principles and
judgments to a situation doesn't mean that one cannot demonstrate and
behave in understanding bridge-building ways. Or at least, that's my
position, congruence issues aside).
One wonders whether the third person in the dialogue would indeed be
neutral about murder. The process is simply to neither suspend judgment or
principles, but to realize that they should not interfere with the process
and goals you are trying to achieve.
Make sense?
Robert Bacal - CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
Internet Address - dbt359@freenet.mb.ca
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. (204) 888-9290
Join us at our Resource Centre at: http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
--Robert Bacal <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>