Re: virus: Everybody's right?

Eric Boyd (
Thu, 03 Jul 1997 22:12:28 -0500

KMO wrote:

> I agree that it's a very good idea to stop spewing one's own memes, take
> a step back, cool off, and get some perspective when tensions rise and
> people are talking past one another, but "everyone's right?"

You make some good points KMO, but I think the easiest way to show what
I meant is to repost where the idea came from:

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 97 20:06:55 UT
From: "Mike Jay" <>


. < Instead of trying to drag their memes, individually, into line with
my suggestion is to try to adopt their way of thinking, to truly delve
the undiscovered country of an alien meme-sphere.>

Reed, et al.

I do not have the scholarship or for that matter the intellectual
to understand and process internally much of what the list speaks to or
however I do want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to "remain"
in the

With that context, I would like to proffer a concept that I have been
on in living leadership: leading at the edge of chaos, a work in

This concept is entitled "EVERYBODY'S RIGHT!" The purpose of this
concept is
to establish a "higher level" of understanding and foster a dialogue at
level beyond values. It also is an absurdity designed to raise the
level of
dialogue in such a manner as to cause a shift in one's thinking, I think
call it a meme!

First off, we know that everybody is not right.

With that out of the way, may I describe what it does mean in this
Reed's DoT describes the reasoning. If we can find a way to examine
meme's and resultant values and beliefs in such a manner as not to

1. alarm and a defensive personal position
2. alarm and a defensive interpersonal position;

...we set the stage for a "different kind of dialogue."

When you undergo a shift such as described by DoT / Everybody's Right!
automatically divest yourself of the need to "defend" your
*investment!* This
is critically important, because instead of a defense debate you move
problem solving (in the worst case) or into *interdevelopmental*
(in the best case) .

This shift leads to understanding that while the person on the other
may not be in *truth*, they think they're right and any frontal assault
that *held* position will create only defensiveness. As far back, as
Sun Tzu
(SP) there has been discussion concerning one's enemy (in the case that
values differ at the worst case) should never be approached frontally.

In the change literature, there are many ways to move someone to a new
position and very little of the time, a frontal assault is the best way,
unless you're pushing them out from in front of a passing car!

If we accept the premise that "they are right and think they are based
on a
"limited view" then it becomes our role to provide new information, test
assumptions in the face of known principles, etc. Yet this involves a
NON-emotional mindset and allows us to release our * investment * a lot
easier than if we have a strong emotional bond and are under emotional

A frontal attack (especially an intellectual) causes the attacked
who must defend their right, or their left as it may be) to lose focus
on the
*instrument* and translates into a full-blown *psychic-attack* causing
realignment with the ability of our psyche to *be well.* This then
all the defense systems and a hardening of all barriers to entry in a
defensive mode and a literal bolstering of the *investment.*

If we can "shift" our own modus operandi in to

1. recognizing the right of the individual to believe different based on
*held* information and acquired knowledge,
2. understand that it will do no good to assault them with *our*
or *right way*,
3. shift our own perspective as suggested in DoT,
4. realize that while the person's truth may not hold up under
that it IS in fact THEIR INVESTEMENT and maybe be closely held,
5. realize that it is not our supra ordinate position to judge and make
everything to everyone else right,

we may invoke the *mechanism* of interdevelopmental dialogue and

1. lower emotional intensity and loosen the lock on the investment (our
and theirs);
2. collaboratively discover new mutual positions;
3. in the worst, "agree to disagree";
4. live and develop more peacefully; and
5. foster sustainability in view of pluralism and diversity.

I know it is pie in the sky, but if you have understood Reed's position
on the
DoT I think you can see for yourself the shift that is made in your own
*directive mind set*. If you can't see what I'm saying then try ACTING
you do for one day and see if things don't become much more effortless
attractive in your life-peace follows.

Remember, EVERYBODY'S RIGHT! (Thanks Reed for making my limited view

I wish I could of done that "programming thing" you guys do with that
thing so I could of" like<insert beevis voice here> impressed ya! (But I
haven't quite figured that three liner out yet! If I would spent as
much time
studying as I did playing football, I bet I could do it!)


1. <Everybody's right>
3. <Reed is great>
4. go to lunch <g>

*** There, I hope that clears up any confusion. "Everybody is *not*
right", but thinking that they *might* be is a valuable mental exercise.