We all have them. Sometimes this means we hope to finish reading the book on the bedside table (or that stupid assignment that was distributed 4 weeks ago); or to get the dishes put away; or to pick up the kids at 3:15, get over to soccer by 3:45, drop-off the dry cleaning, prepare a nutritious and delicious meal that all family members will eat, and get the sheets put back onto the beds.
Sometimes this means finally meeting with the major partner that we are hoping to work with on a new program.
And sometimes this means convincing the majority of humanity that your belief system is the only way to see the world, to understand the world, to organize the information we receive, and the only way to define your behaviors and actions.
Right or wrong, we all have them. Humans operate on self-interest, and are socialized (hopefully learn?) to act on the good of the majority. This blog’s agenda is to show how people work towards and hopefully achieve peace. As has been previously discussed, this achievement will never be through self-protection. Someone has to literally drop their own agenda and imagine the reasons for the other side’s actions.
Pointing fingers will always, always, always put the other side on the defensive. So releasing a statement that blames a specific person for something will always end with a fight. And releasing a movie that blames an entire religion for (what even, being boorish?) will only result in defensive feelings and a need to prove that video wrong.
But let us escalate tensions even further shall we? One tiny, crazy group of people offends another tiny, crazy group of people somewhere else. The offended group responds with murder of a bystander that probably had no idea the offensive video was even produced. (http://world.time.com/2012/09/11/cairos-u-s-embassy-incident-two-sets-of-fundamentalisms-unleash-havoc/?cid=nlc-dailybrief-daily_news_brief-link6-20120912 )
Now more people are involved. But rather than responding to what was originally ignited (the film in this case), top leaders begin to accuse one another of improperly responding (so as to garner more votes in an upcoming election). (http://tinyurl.com/9yzz56w)
There are now four major agendas in play here, none of which are actually communicating with the other, but all of them are taking offense at the others. Give it time and more players will start taking sides, but in reality only pushing their own agenda. Pretty soon there are so many agendas at play that no one is communicating anything. We choose what we want to hear and respond with what our personal agenda is.
Wouldn’t it be awesome if somewhere in that mess, even just one player, decided to stop communicating with the agenda and actually respond to the reality of the events? That could lead to some true break through in communication. Who knows, maybe even eventual peace. That might be cool.