| PerspectiveMapper.com

When we think of conflict, we immediately assume the best solution is to somehow ‘resolve’ it. While I’m forced to use the word ‘conflict resolution’ to describe the DustMapper.com project, it actually isn’t at all the best choice of words. The attempt at conflict resolution is itself generally the problem.

That might sound like heresy, but it becomes clearer and clearer as I continue this project that this is the case.

The focus on this project, and the research conducted within, is conflict awareness – the explicit mapping out of conflict itself. Why? Because we realize that conflict is essential to the fabric of humanity, and essential to our very sense of being. It is conflict itself that is the source of insight.

What we’re hoping to do is express conflict in a more mature way. Thus, we hope we don’t have to resort to killing each other because conflict, nor ruining each other’s livelihoods. What we can do is learn to benefit and grow from the conflict itself.

Ranjeeth Thunga
@pov_mapper

When one steps on the spiritual path, one often comes to the point where their lifelong assumptions are challenged. This can be very disconcerting for many of us, causing us to retreat back into our comfort zone. But gradually, and eventually, we come to realize that Truth is impossible to escape from, and we start to shred our old perspectives in favor of refined ones.

We know this, all of us have faced this, but the bitch of the spiritual path is realizing this doesn’t just happen once. This happens over, and over, and over again. All our cherished notions – all our cherished spiritual notions – get continually ripped apart, ripped apart again, and ripped apart yet again.

Our ego – the quality of ourselves that holds onto expired perspectives – resists constantly, unrelentingly, in this process. But ultimately the process itself of seeing through this each and every time is the salvation itself – this desire ultimately pushes through resistances.

Ranjeeth Thunga
@pov_mapper
Concept Disclaimer – Please Read

A great challenge for me – anyone – is keeping the judgmental process outside of the perspectives we either express or own.

What does that mean? It means taking the ‘objective’ component out of the ‘subjective’ process of communication.

Why would we want to do this? Isn’t this a step backwards? Actually not. Whether you believe there is such thing as ‘objectivity’ or not (that’s a different debate), it’s clear that the vast majority of what we have the capacity to share is simply our subjective perspective based on what we know, or even more important what we feel. We simply do not have the capacity to speak objectively. When we attempt to do so, we end up ‘judging’ (ie. in the eyes of Jesus Christ, sinning).

The height of maturity is the ability to stay true to our own perspective, but still allow room for other perspectives.

Here are examples where we can make subtle, but powerful, shifts in our language to more mature language:

In a customer survey, instead of scaling ‘poor or excellent’ we could scale from ‘unsatisfied or satisfied’.
In a musical review, instead of saying a piece of art is ‘good’ or ‘poor’, we can say ‘struck me’ or ‘didn’t strike me’.
In a description of a person, instead of saying this person is ‘beautiful’ or ‘ugly’, we can say ‘I’m attracted’ or ‘I’m not attracted’.

Now I’m the first one to say I don’t always do this. The forces that be in the world we live make it inordinately hard to not only be aware of this, but also implement this.

Further, to be always doing makes language clumsy and awkward. Finally, it’s often self-evident when we don’t intend to overstep our perspective – explicit language is generally not necessary.

When, then, should we do this? We do this when the consequences of miscommunication are greater than the effort involved in making such adjustment. This might end up being just 5% of our total communication, but an essential 5%.

This is generally true when describing people and our relationships with them – generally areas which are highly sensitive. This is also true of any formal or recorded statement.

It’s important to note it feels ‘better’ when we do this – if we’re sensitive to our own feelings, we realize we’ve created less karmic baggage, stepped on fewer toes, and freed ourselves from a great many ‘faux pas’ in the process. We also feel a stronger congruence between our feelings and our words, and a general sense of confidence in our expression and perspective.

Ranjeeth Thunga
@pov_mapper

At one point, I used to say that perspectives can’t fit onto a scale – I used to say they are qualitative, not quantitative.

However, I’ve been reconsidering this position, as I’ve been finding each perspective has an equal and opposite counterbalance – I feel it’s built into the fabric of the universe.

Each perspective has it’s equal and opposite. However, when two perspectives are in relationship, there is automatic transcendence. Transcendence, while a concept that is often not helpful in the process, is the ultimate realization of truth, or non-duality, or non-separation of two counterbalanced perspectives.

The error comes, and the imbalance comes, and the whole host of societal ills come, when we try to assert our perspective as being superior to its counterbalanced perspective. No. It’s important to stand up for our own perspective to ensure it is properly represented, not to diminish its counterbalanced perspective in the process.

The superior perspective is ultimately not the one that is the better of the two equal and opposing perspectives, but the one that takes into account both perspectives.

Ranjeeth Thunga
@pov_mapper

For a long time, I assumed the phrase ‘transcendence’ was the best to describe the spiritual process – transcendence of experience, after all, appears to describe the spiritual journey in a nutshell. But even this word, I have to admit, is misleading for many reasons. Three of them are:

Transcendence connotes ‘loss’. While the true definition of transcendence is not about loss, but about gain, there still is the association that transcendence somehow means or involve some sort of loss. In truth, only the sense of loss is lost, nothing more, but the connotation still stands.

Transcendence connotes we can exist outside ourselves – a transcended state so to speak. However, that connotation is wrong. Neither we, nor any object, exists outside of itself.

Transcendence connotes escape – escape from the here and now. It requires no elaboration that the spiritual journey, ultimately, is not about escape at all.

So, what word is a replacement for transcendence? I’ve determined ‘relationship’ is the best one. Relationship doesn’t insinuate an escape from the current situation, nor does it connote any existence outside of current circumstances and objects, nor does it connote loss. If we focus on relating to each and everything, transcendence takes care of itself, needing no extra attention or even definition whatsoever.

Ranjeeth Thunga
@pov_mapper
Concept Disclaimer – please read

PerspectiveMapper.com

Gather Diverse Perspectives, Make Wiser Decisions

Monthly Archives: November 2011

Conflict’s Essentiality

Shredding of Assumptions

Replacing Judgment

The binary quality of perspectives

Even ‘transcendence’ is misleading

Thank you