rethink PERFECT

I was listening to a lady being interviewed on a program called Insight on SBS TV, who said she had been bashed, stalked and nearly killed by a man that she had gotten engaged to. When asked how this could occur – she happened to be a psychologist. She replied, to the effect, that “psychopaths are incredibly clever”.  But imagine if her statement was reversed and she spoke accountably i.e. about herself. Then it would require her to say that she “acted incredibly stupidly”.

If you saw the photos of her injuries the word “incredibly” is valid in this instance as her injuries appeared to be horrific and somehow she allowed this man into her life and he turned out to be incredibly violent and destructive.
Maybe if she was more comfortable with using accountable language she might realise that she is and was accountable for who she allowed into her life and to treat her so destructively.

For example, she mentioned how she rolled up to a surprise engagement party, hers!
that he had organised. Although she said she felt quite uncomfortable with such behaviour, she said that it took her weeks before she dealt with it.

As adults, I do not believe that we are a victim of who we allow into our lives, it is not a matter of “fate” or “destiny”, in my view, just a simple operation of CHOICE, allowing or rejecting appropriate or inappropriate behaviour into our lives.

As any guru worth her weight in salt would say,
“Choose well grass hopper!” (and don’t blame anyone else for your choice)

*a footnote on the word CHOICE. Look at the word as I have written it, in a mirror
and turn it upside down. You will notice that no matter how you look at it you will always have CHOICE.

“What we measure with we will be measured by”.

If we fail to make anger unacceptable then we will continue to be a victim of it, I believe.

To me anger is understandable (I can’t get angry about it) but it is not acceptable.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone that followed a different
code of football than you do? I bet it didn’t go very far.
eg. “You know when the siren goes, it is great how they…..”. Other code supporter says; “Siren? What the….!.”

I think because I want to actually have a conversation about a code of conversation that is different than most people it does not go very far.
eg “You know how you use non-adjustable language, well this is …..” Other code supporter says; “Non-adjustable? What the….!”

Even if I clearly explained what a siren or non-adjustable language was to the supporter of another code, by the very nature of supporting, they will only understand that there is a difference but find it difficult to accept the difference because they support the other code.

So then best to converse about something else other than the code. Unfortunately because my code is the one for conversing we are not going to go very far with any conversation, unless one of us un-supports our code, or the other does not have a code.

I think everyone has a code of conversation,  just not as conscious as mine and I believe the use of non-accountable and non-adjustable language is part of their code of conversing. The lack of appreciating or acknowledging are also part of this code or the general code for conversation.

This may be testable and I might do a joint paper with a student on this subject, of a General Code of Conversation.

Finally imagine actually trying to PLAY a football game when both teams were using different codes!! And with an umpire/referee from a third code? Ha! No chance.

It would make a great scene in a documentary though, to help prove my point.

“My Life and Work” Written by Henry FOrd in 1922 and his words seem to have a very modern feel about them.

P 48
“We fortunately did not inherit any traditions and we are not founding any. If we have a tradition it is this:

Everything can always be done better than it is being done.”

Henry Ford

P 120
“As I have said, everyone in the place reserves an open mind as to the way in which every job is being done. If there is any fixed theory – any fixed rule – it is that:

No job is being done well enough.

The whole factory management is always open to suggestion, and we have an informal suggestion system by which any workman can communicate any idea that comes to him and get action on it.”

Henry Ford

“Concretely, what I most realized about business in that year (1908) – and I have been leaning more each year without finding it necessary to change my first conclusions – is this:

(1) That finance is given a place ahead of work and therefore tends to kill the work and destroy the fundamental of service.

(2) That thinking first of money instead of work brings on fear of failure and this fear blocks every avenue of business – it makes a man afraid of competition, of changing his methods, or of doing anything which might change his condition.

(3) That the way is clear for anyone who thinks first of service – of doing the work in the best possible way.“

Henry Ford

It seems to me that we consider anger to be like a fart.
That is ours is ok but everyone else’s stinks.

I do not think that we will ever have peace on this planet until we all come to
realise this and to take more responsibility and accountability for our anger and farts.

You knew the job was dangerous when you too it, Fred (click to hear Super Chicken)

The next time that you are “pissed off” by something or the lack of something, remember you have a choice how to react. To get angry or sad or the Super Chicken way. In my book the first two are understandable but not acceptable.

Yes, of course these responses are unacceptable as there is not one person that I have ever met that aspires to either. “But what about certain circumstances, surely it is necessary and therefore acceptable to get angry or sad then?” I hear you ask rhetorically. Well no, I don’t think so.

Think about it for a second, if we planned well and long enough we could have prepared for most of the circumstances that lead to us getting angry or sad. Sometimes that might not be possible or practical but then that is the risk we take in our life also and these are circumstances and fate that comes with the territory of living.

So instead of us trying to justify our anger or sadness from the circumstances that occur in our life why not consider what Super Chicken used to say:

“You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred” *Click to play

Who are you?

In less than 25 words can you explain who you are, in a nut shell or case?

I will give you my example:

“I am an organic thinking machine, that is learning to cooperate with others so that they
can learn to cooperate with me.”

As far as I am concerned, this issue between women and men and who should initiate
is a Mexican or Sexican Standoff.

That is, most of us, on both sides of this equation, are now, not willing to initiate first.

Everyone knows that we (men and women) are both now equal in principal and therefore equally responsible for initiating relationships.
2013 has its advantages and its disadvantages, confusion being one of them.

So how do we overcome this standoff and meet members of the opposite sex?

No idea!

Any feedback from single women much appreciated.

Who can argue with the rationale of the Golden Rule of treating others as we would have them treat us? Well I guess I would like to here.

Not that I disagree with the idea only that I dispute the notion of its simplicity.

You see, I like chocolate cake and having my feet rubbed (not with the cake).
So does that mean that I should go around rubbing everyone elses feet and feed them chocolate cake? Hardly and so here we have the problem. In what context or when should we treat others the way we want to be treated?

After pondering this thought for over 25 years I think that I have finally worked out what is the context of the Golden Rule.
I think that it is meant for when we are in dispute with someone specifically and it is a
call to action for us to work out how we would like to be treated before we ever get to this point. I do not think that it is a way for us to avoid disputes, as I consider them healthy.
I also do not think it means that we go around holding each other’s hand and hug each other. Just a way to ensure that our disputes do not get heated or out of control. Having dissenting views and contributing them is what allows us to grow. Having a safe environment to do so, I believe is imperative.

What started out as a very simple rational now turns out to be a very complicated, life long quest to find a better way of resolving and moderating disputes.

Having done the groundwork I have completed the theory and am now ready to trial my 6 rules of engagement during interpersonal relationships.

Rethink Perfect is my treaty for the Golden Rule or as I call it my golden treaty.
Have you got your’s ready?