Sides

shapes-special
Most controversies seem to demand the taking of sides. Even though most every controversy has fewer or many more than two sides, the invitation always comes addressed to either or to or. This narrowing of perspective might be characterized as the root cause of the controversy, though no one engaged in resolving it would ever suspect that the cause was meta to the maelstrom. This paragraph explains the human condition.

No day ever goes by but what I’m invited to stand up for this or its logical counterpart, that. I’m challenged to show my true colors, as if they could not possibly include a rather fuzzy grey. My clients insist that I see their world through their eyes, and I surprise myself when I find I’m almost able to, but without the conviction they bring to the experience. I might be able to appreciate the sides they see without actually seeing or ever really believing in them.

Brief Consulting seems to be about integrating disparate sides into a shape better suited to its situation. How many sides does a globe possess? As many as I imagine being there.

The controversies are interesting, being as close to honest projections of internal beliefs as anyone ever gets access to. The words and the music always mismatch, though, and seem easy prey to any of the encyclopedia of single-sided shapes I carry around with me. They call it reframing, but it might be better labeled re-seeing. No one can completely erase that tenacious first impression, but anyone might at any time reconsider that hasty perception.

The Muse claims to be bored by right/wrong controversies, favoring right/left ones which integrate a divisive boundary into a more infinite form. All controversies qualify as finite games played in an infinite space. Integration injects the infinite into finity. When offered the choice of this or that, choose neither.

©2014 by David A. Schmaltz - all rights reserved









blog comments powered by Disqus