Replying to LO24702 --
Sajeela wrote in reply to At:
>> We must take care to promote the imagination of kids.
>Again, (picky picky Sajeela) if you say "we must" At, can you imagine
>that I might take offense to this because it feels like you are spaeking
>AT me instead of with me? If you said this instead:
>"I believe that it is so important to promote the imagination of kids"
>then I experience your staement very differently At. I experience that
>you are talking to me from your center, and not that you are telling me
>how I and all the rest should think. When you say "we must" it fells so
>much like an assumption to me, or an order you are giving me, rather then
>an invitation to see if I want to go there with you.
Now I am picky (I picked out this explanation). But I differ here, my
feelings seem to be differently 'wired':
Reading this 'We must take care...' convey some of the original urge, just
the way At may have felt it. So this language makes it easy for me to
relate to it. I can directly agree, which I do, in this case. 'Yes'.
On the other hand 'I believe that it is so important...' sounds like
hiding the authentic message behind a polite wall of untouchability for
me. What would do a 'Yes' here? Nothing but acknowledge that someone has
expressed a certain belief. So what? Millions of people have billions of
beliefs. It is because At holds this belief, that this urging 'We must
take care...' comes more deeply from the center than an intellectually
reflected statement of this belief.
Dear Sajeela, you wrote that you are KVA. This may explain why you easily
take offense when a message comes accross too directly. I am AVK. Without
such directness, a message would never reach my K.
In the spirit of alignment through diversity.
"Winfried Dressler" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.