This. Experienced NDs know, perhaps better than most, that victory always begins in the mind.
It’s the first fight you must win, and is often the most difficult, because doing so requires seeing beyond present circumstances to a reality that does not yet exist.
Convincing yourself that it could is not easy, and takes practice, but is necessary, because without that vision you can’t know what to do next. You can only react, which means your opponent controls you.
Interestingly, however you acquire that vision, it becomes yours. You can share it, and when you do, big things start to happen.
This is a brilliant way of looking at this whole situation. I think that if people can contextualize it like you said it would really help bridge the gap!
Thanks! It’s been on my mind for a while. The friction is obvious to most of us by now. Every day I see more examples of strong (and mutually exclusive) opinions about it. Still, we haven’t yet agreed on how to frame it inclusively, much less how to reconcile the need.
Where we’re headed currently, I think, is one group “winning” via consensus-building to censure and alienate the other. We will effectively exile their perspectives to other online spaces, or perhaps a particular space which comes to be thought of as our toxic offshoot.
That process has already begun. While I haven’t figured out exactly where exiles are landing, trends suggest the voices that will ultimately be exiled are our wounded. Right now they’re exiting the dialog feeling silenced and shamed as cowards, so I wouldn’t expect their return.
Before that realization I considered the trend progress, since we’re resolving our doomerism/morale issue, but now I can’t help feeling like it’s both a terrible injustice to our comrades and an unnecessary waste that surely we can avoid. Hence the spitballing.
If you or anyone reading has any ideas, I’d be grateful to hear them.
This. Experienced NDs know, perhaps better than most, that victory always begins in the mind.
It’s the first fight you must win, and is often the most difficult, because doing so requires seeing beyond present circumstances to a reality that does not yet exist.
Convincing yourself that it could is not easy, and takes practice, but is necessary, because without that vision you can’t know what to do next. You can only react, which means your opponent controls you.
Interestingly, however you acquire that vision, it becomes yours. You can share it, and when you do, big things start to happen.
This is a brilliant way of looking at this whole situation. I think that if people can contextualize it like you said it would really help bridge the gap!
Thanks! It’s been on my mind for a while. The friction is obvious to most of us by now. Every day I see more examples of strong (and mutually exclusive) opinions about it. Still, we haven’t yet agreed on how to frame it inclusively, much less how to reconcile the need.
Where we’re headed currently, I think, is one group “winning” via consensus-building to censure and alienate the other. We will effectively exile their perspectives to other online spaces, or perhaps a particular space which comes to be thought of as our toxic offshoot.
That process has already begun. While I haven’t figured out exactly where exiles are landing, trends suggest the voices that will ultimately be exiled are our wounded. Right now they’re exiting the dialog feeling silenced and shamed as cowards, so I wouldn’t expect their return.
Before that realization I considered the trend progress, since we’re resolving our doomerism/morale issue, but now I can’t help feeling like it’s both a terrible injustice to our comrades and an unnecessary waste that surely we can avoid. Hence the spitballing.
If you or anyone reading has any ideas, I’d be grateful to hear them.