rethink PERFECT

Imagine this, most people form business and personal partnerships throughout their lifetime based on forming agreements and promises and yet when asked what they think
an agreement or promise is, most would be hard pressed to string a sentence together
with basically no chance that these definitions would come close to lining up with their partners’ definition.

In some ways it is like our loose use of words like love, trust and respect.
The playwright Bertolt Brecht said that “As soon as something seems the most obvious thing in the world, it means that we have abandoned all attempts to understand it” …and define it, in my view. If we cannot define it then we cannot understand, I believe.

So, here is my latest definition of what an Agreement is:

What is an agreement?
Making separate “promises” TOGETHER.

Then what is a promise?
What ONE says is true from start & end time. 

*a promise only needs one person to make it.

As you can see it is quite an intricate definition and involves promises to be defined also.
This is my definition only but of course if I was to form a partnership which involves agreements with someone else then I would need them to be on the same or similar page in order for us to have any success.

Here is the nub, most partnerships are not on the same page because of this and I have proof to say that there is at least something fundamentally wrong with the agreements that
are formed within partnerships due to such high failure rates.

How do you define an agreement?

Everyone who has ever watched Maxwell Smart knows that the opposite to Control is Chaos. Control are the good guys and Chaos are the baddies, ha!

Most people fear Chaos or loosing control and we will even go so far as try to control someone else in order to keep control of our own lives.

This fear of loosing control or chaos is common in both men and women.

One of the first signs of loosing control is anger, it occurs both because of our fear of loosing control and also results in us loosing further control, forming a feedback loop. The more angry we get the more we loose control and more we loose control the more angry we get.

So how do we take back control? In my view we can do it by reducing anger in our lives, from others and especially from ourselves.

Feeling shocked is another sign of losing control. Recognising this feeling and simply saying to oneself that “I seem shocked” is a good way of gaining control and stopping this feedback loop of external and internal stimuli.

Finally, entering into an intimate relationship throws any idea of control out of the window, especially if we go on to have a child. Being prepared for the lack of control or chaos, i.e. not feeling shocked when this chaotic experience occurs, will help us cope in this situation.

Preparing  for Chaos is a great way to maintain Control,

Prepare well GH.

PS Maybe the opposite is true also.

Preparing for control is a great way to maintain chaos. 

Marriage vows that last forever can have that effect along with totalitarian governments security laws.

What is a promise?

I would say that a promise is whatever we agree upon based on a specific length of time.

In the case of marriage it is usually a commitment to “love one another and stay together forever” or until the death of one.

But is this realistic in this day and age? Of course not. Most marriages fail in Australia and
the average only last around 8.7 years before separation. That is a far cry from “forever”

So what is going on here, why do people continue to make such outrageously over optimistic promises and why do they also still accept them? I guess because they can. “Love is blind” as they say and in this case it seems to be the blind leading the blind and both heading for a cliff.

Unfortunately rage is also blind (blind rage) and probably goes a long way to explain
the cause of an acrimonious separations, as this is when most domestic violence usually occurs, according to this paper on the Key Issues to Domestic Violence .

Are there any guarantees or warranties that come with a marriage?
Well there is the Family Law Act that applies to us and is based on no blame, but
basically there is no redress when someone ends a marriage.

Now all of this is so logical and reasonable and yet most couples fail to discuss the possibilities of their separation and fail to prepare for the potential failure before
they get married.

I think couples should be licensed to get married and should participate in proper training in moderating disputes before they get married. The risks are too great and the costs of such an acrimonious separation and divorce too expensive.

So what is my solution to an acrimonious separation and potential domestic violence? Simply talk about all of this when you first meet, forming the first agreement on what a promise means to each.

ie Define the actual agreement and the time period for it to last.

My definition or goal or a promise for life is: to form a reciprocal relationship based on similar values that are applicable for NOW only. “Now” having just past, means that at any point thereafter, either party can initiate to revisit the agreement to form a new agreement together.

Now that sure beats to “love someone forever” which basically has zero meaning, in my view.

Average marriage in Australia lasts 8.7 before a separation and divorce at 12.3 years.
Ref: Average Marriage Lasts Worldwide and Average Separation in Australia

I bet you would be surprised to find if you asked the person that you are closest to how they defined an agreement that it would not match with yours. And if I told you mine it would be different again.
Crazy but true, we are living in a world where we make countless number of agreements daily with our nearest and dearest and with total strangers and yet we assume we all agree what an agreement is.

If what I am saying is true and it is simple to prove, then it could go a long way to explain some of the complications we have, especially in personal relationships, such domestic violence, divorce and just a general state of dysfunction in relationships.

Here is my definition of an agreement:

What we say is true for now. Or a promise for now.

In other words we can change the original agreement anytime either one of us want to but we both need to agree once again to get the new agreement and no coercion can be applied.
As opposed to what some people define an agreement as “a promise forever”. I call that a com-promise (compromise) or acquiescence, not an agreement.

So, depending on the process the relationship can become a perpetual agreement making machine or system that, as we perfect our agreement making process we can create better agreements more effectively and efficiently.

What do you think an agreement is?

Perpetual Agreement Machine

What about this:

Conformity is joining a group to feel certain that we are right.

Converting is going from one group to another, to feel certain that we are right.

Converging is forming a new group together to feel less that we could be wrong.

At Pablow Inc. not only do we believe that being &
thinking different is important but begging to differ
is in our DNA.

We believe that everyone at Pablow should be
willing to step up when they see or hear something
that they do not agree or disagree with. The
sooner the better, we think, and doing it perfectly is
simply not an option.

At the same time we believe stepping up is best
done through the DECARRT process & that we
all agree with it. This process or culture can be
updated at any time using the existing process
to modify itself.

If I asked you to complete the above heading what would you say?

I think that most people will say Victims of Persecutors or Abusers.
The blameless and the blamed.
This seems to me to be a very simplistic and polarized view of the world, and one
that is ubiquitous in our media, social media, and society in general.

Now imagine if we changed it to Victims of Victims?
Where, instead of being the victim of an individual or group we were the victims of compromised systems and where people are simply part of these systems.
What would this mean?

Firstly it could mean that we stop trying to find someone to blame for our lot and maybe start to do something about it to change or create new & better systems. Less fallible systems. It could also mean that we help those that suffer the most because of these systems like the poor, minorities and displaced, instead of demonizing and blaming them for their lot, as is the way of some political systems.

I think it is time we stop seeing ourselves as victims of others but of the systems, traditions, political, legal and educational institutions that still need considerable improvement before we can safely say there are no more victims of victims.

Our use of the word temper seem to have been perverted somewhat.
ie “She has a temper” would imply that she gets angry easily.

Here is what the dictionary says:
noun

Funny, my favorite line in a movie was in the Monty Python comedy The Life of Bryan in 1979, where Bryan tells his followers that: “you are all individuals” and “you are all different” and they repeat in unison “we are all individuals” and “we are all different”.
Then one person at the back puts up their hand and says “I’m not!”.

This is a bit like Steve Jobs telling everyone to think different. I posted this in November 2014:
“Ask 100 people if they think differently & 99 will put up their hand. The 1 that doesn’t is an entrepreneur #startup #startupaus Be different”

But even being different is a furphy, as most entrepreneurs  now think that is all the rage but “being different” and “thinking differently” requires us to differ, and most people, especially the younger ones, in my view, are afraid to differ because of the conflict that can and usually does occur.

But what if we agreed (to a degree, as remember we differ) to set up a work environment where people felt comfortable to differ. That is what we are working on at Pablow Inc.
This seems to be taking some time though, and it is a work in progress, as we still have to allow each other to beg to differ.

Imagine if you agreed with your partner, business or personal, that in order for us to move forward we needed to agree or at least not disagree. And that all that was needed to veto something was to state that “I don’t agree”, without even requiring an explanation or reason why. That the power lies in the hand of the person disagreeing, what would this mean?

Well, first off, isn’t that what every relationship consists of or at least should consist of? And if not then what is the alternative?

If this were the case, to truly agree to disagree and veto any or every decision, firstly there would be no place for anger or rushing, in this situation, using coercion.

The only way forward is together and to form agreements based on considered argument from the person making the point to the dissenter. And no, in this case argument does not mean losing our cool because either one has the right to disagree and even veto the conversation at any point by stating that they simply disagree with the other’s approach.

What this means is that the person being the dissenter in the relationship is protected at all times from the tiniest of abuses or perceived abuse.

This is the simplest and most powerful way I know how to be protected and to protect my partner when dissenting even if they don’t agree outside the bounds of the context of the relationship.

Of course you would have every right to not agree or to even disagree with me here but I would prefer not entering into any dispute unless we formed such an agreement, upfront, as I fear that it would not be beneficial or edifying for us without having prior, agreed to, rules of engagement.

So here is my proposal for such engagement. What’s yours and just lets compare for now?