Non-confrontational language

Hello everyone,

There is intention to alleviate suffering by reducing conflict, separation, and division in our lives. Changing the world around us is within ourselves. A fundamental way seems to be dissolving the “I” and its use in our thinking and language, this idea and symbol of a constant, stable center or ego, which is illusionary or abstract.

There is a proposal for a language experiment: always replacing the pronoun “I” with “there is” whenever speaking about the present or future.

By not using “I” as a subject in these contexts, removes this fundamental non-fact from the content of thinking and communication. “I” can still be used as an object when referring to past actions. It might feel grammatically awkward at first but should still be quite comprehensible.

This approach could lead to more truthful thinking and communication about what’s happening now and foster more non-confrontational conversations.

What do you think?

Examples of active action syntax:

  1. “I am considering your proposal.” > “There is considering of your proposal.”

  2. “I think you’re wrong.” > “There is thinking that you are wrong.”

  3. “I believe you’re right.” > “There is believing you’re right.”

1 Like

Good experiment for loosening our instinctual sense of self being the thinker/doer. Rather than framing things as I _______ you frame them as There is _______ing. It aligns well with the notion of no observer, no observed, just observing.

1 Like

I knew a man who never used the pronouns I, me, you, and instead, used the name of whoever he was talking to or speaking of. Doing this is less awkward and more honest than what jmsaario is proposing.

Is our use of I “instinctual” or symptomatic of the brain’s identification with thought?

It aligns well with the notion of no observer, no observed, just observing.

A notion that doesn’t support the brain’s unquestioned practice of identifying with thought.

Pronouns : I" or “me” cane be replaced with “one”.

Eliminating or replacing pronouns is a good exercise for the self-centered brain, but wouldn’t it be best to practice the exercise with one’s thoughts before practicing it with others?

My worry is that these can easily become just verbal tics.

How familiar are you with Bohm’s ideas on dialogue and the krishnamurti dialogue groups?
here’s Bohm’s book “on dialogue” https://desertcreekhouse.com.au/texts/ondialogue.pdf

another more modern method for awareness in relationship and dialogue is “insight dialogue” (related to the mindfulness movement and secular buddhism) which is based upon 5 concepts of pause giving oneself space in dialogue rather than being pulled along endlessly by automatic reactivity to the ideas being expressed relax and let go of whatever reaction you are grasping tightly in that moment openness non resistance to whatever else might come up in that moment harmony embracing whatever comes up honesty & compassion when sharing whatever you eventually have to say

I also like the “street epistemology” movement as a way to avoid confrontation in inquiry - its based on the Socratic method and can be found on youtube

nb. I suppose that my answers are not really based in language but rather attitude and experience in relationship

What’s important is the intention not the method.

We seriously address our concern of conflict and suffering in the world by acknowledging that thinking, and especially egocentric expression and language, are fundamental causes of pain and conflict.

By exploring this active action syntax, we consciously focus on evolving our thinking and communication to invoke less division and conflict. Not as a gimmick but as an intervention to our recognized harmful habits. We put emphasis on the actions occurring in the present moment rather than the individual manifesting them.

This shift in the use of language encourages mutual reflection, thinking together on a plane of shared reality and thus reduces division and conflict.

1 Like

The question of intention and method is tricky to discuss - especially in K circles.

The question can be put simply thus : is the intentional practise of a method of meditation worthwhile?

In other words : is it useful to voluntarily instigate moments in our life where we are reminded of the importance of awareness?

To help with this question we must keep in mind what our motivation is exactly, what the goal of the method is? Is it about some future accumulation? Or is it “merely” for awareness itself - freedom as part of the mix in this moment?

What intention is there to meditate? Meditation is observing choiceless awareness. Methods of meditation can improve one’s understanding of impatience, enhance the ability to concentrate or uncover the irrationality of practicing meditation itself.

There is questioning whether it’s worthwhile to practice any method with an intention of bringing about something that is not in the field of psychological time.

Useful to whom or what? Is there truly any usefulness in continuing to live in the past as we all do?

And as for the voluntary aspect: are we certain this habit of instigating moments in the past is truly voluntary? If it were, wouldn’t that imply you could stop living in the past and be fully present at any moment? Perhaps the very idea of “voluntary action” is worth questioning.

Yes - thank you - this seems to be the main question we are asking in this thread.
It is a question that many have already answered and transformed into dogma - but I honestly still wonder about.

Can behaviour affect reality? Intention is key - as in the means is the end. The end is not future behaviour but the effects of reality moment to moment.

That depends on what we mean by reality, doesn’t it? Human behavior cannot alter the actuality of “what-is” (the fundamental, unchangeable nature of existence). However, the “reality” of human consciousness with its thoughts, experiences, and perceptions, is entirely shaped by the behaviors it has engaged in and continues to engage in.

My “reality” is shaped by my “reality” because I’m rarely if ever engaged with what isn’t my “reality”?

It may now be evident that analysing, thinking and talking about our relationship with reality - or our psychological being - or freedom from the known and all this stuff, does not necessarily lead to anything other than some intellectual conclusion.

Another aspect of inquiry is the creation of space in everyday life that does not depend on mentation and analysis. Examples like not using the word “I”, sitting silently, wiping away thoughts whilst brushing our teeth, Bohm dialogue etc

Are these “tricks” of any use?

1 Like

While talking to others, you realize that you want to be right. And you also notice that the other person also wants to be right.
That is the common ground, apart from the different views that are held and the resulting conflicts or confrontations .
When you realize how difficult it can be to let go of your own convictions, you probably understand why it is the same for the other person.

2 Likes

Yes, hopefully understand that! We try all the tricks, follow all the gurus, religions, drugs, cults etc…brain is hell bent on getting the prize! And then maybe there is the ‘insight’ that illuminates the folly of ‘will’, ‘effort’ and ‘spiritual greed’. Does all the searching help?….Maybe?

1 Like

There is the variant where you propose X and I counter with not-X. It’s a form of universal neti-neti negation. The goal is to point out the limited truth of all views.

1 Like

Convictions I’m aware are shot on sight, but convictions I am unaware of go undetected and undeleted, standing in defiance of reason, and serving only to create and sustain confusion and conflict.

A conviction is a conclusion drawn for no better reason than the belief that I must believe in somethings. When something is true, no belief is necessary.

So my problem isn’t defending my convictions, but being aware of all of them so as to have no convictions. All I know for sure is that I can be mistaken.

Where’s there defense, there’s resistance.

1 Like

This conviction seems to anchor observation in the uncertainty of thought, always tied to the known.

Doesn’t this confine us to remain within the limits of knowing, unable to see beyond? Ironically, it seems like we’re closing the door on inquiry itself