Some self-Actualization from time to time is sometimes a good thing
Without reiterating the entire
theory of hierarchy of Maslow, self-actualization is, very simply put, the
highest level of self-reflection and improvement an individual can achieve.
So first, I need to make a
disclosure: I’m a Christian first, conservative second, Republican third
(shakily so at times). (Liberals at this point are all going
“Boooooooo!”) What do I mean? I try to look at the world around me
with the Bible as a filter. I also try to ensure that my reaction to the
world around me is also filtered through the Bible as a filter. This
doesn't mean I'm perfect or don't make mistakes, it's just the world view I
have through which I evaluate the world. Some people might confuse #2 and
#3 as the same thing, but they’re really not. It merely means that I
apply the standards of conservatism before the standards of a political party,
even when said political party usually espouses conservative principles.
It is important for me to make this disclosure in order to set the context for
the experience I want to share.
I’m trying to get caught up on all
the podcasts I’ve been missing and was listening to podcast done by what I
quickly labeled very quickly as a misinformed, uber liberal young lady
explaining about the outcomes of a health care clinic she worked in.
Liberals seem to frequently accuse conservatives of using coded language for
this and that. Less than 5 minutes into this presentation I heard her use
a number of code language references used by the left including the use of
“pregnant people.” Now, if you’re talking to a mixed group of health care
providers that includes doctors that treat both people and animals, I guess that
reference is pretty important. “Pregnant people” is code for acceptance
of transgenderism and I completely refuse to accept than any gender other than
female can be pregnant regardless of individually designated identity.
She made some inaccurate generalizations about health care that are prevalent
on the left. So this is what was going on in my mind. After hearing
the code language, I was ready to delete the podcast and go onto another.
But I acquiesced to an inner voice
and kept listening. I filtered the code language to something I
considered more accurate. I ignored the code language that was
irreconcilable with reason and logic (“pregnant people” being an
example). What I began to hear was a description of a health care dynamic
that was having extremely positive results. The processes and procedures
this clinic had implemented made a lot of sense. It focused on supportive
care of the patient not the needs of insurance companies and doctors.
Patients began having dramatically better outcomes than their counterparts.
The self-actualization part of this
experience happened after the podcast was done. I realized that their
health care model reduced costs, improved efficiency, put the patient first,
and resulted in better outcomes. If I had succumbed to my first instincts
and shut off the podcast, I would have deprived myself of the experience of
this team and the important, existential implications their model has.
That made me wonder how many other important conversations have been avoided
because we (both left and right) couldn’t get past code language and the
lexicon of the other side. Both sides engage in lexiconic fencing,
attempting to “win” an argument on the use of words, rather than the use of a
logical argument. How many times have we resorted to name calling when
we’re without a logical argument?
Civil discourse is an essential
element to a Constitutional Republic. It was the exchange of ideas,
ideologies, beliefs, and opinions that laid the foundation for our country,
which, by the way, has lasted over 200 years. We’re the only true
Constitutional Republic in the world that has survived the test of time.
The civil part of discourse comes when we listen to understand, rather than
listen to reply or rebut. Understanding doesn’t mean acceptance or
agreement, which many people on both sides seems to forget. I don’t
believe that progressive, leftist ideologies are compatible with a Constitutional
Republic. In fact, I believe that by adopting them, either incrementally
or at all would be the beginning of the end of this “grand experiment” we call
America.
However, I’m now ready to listen to
understand. I want to hear why you believe what you believe. I want
to hear what you believe about what I believe. Don’t expect me to
automatically accept your ideas or beliefs nor treat me as an enemy because I
don’t. Answers come from a broad spectrum of beliefs. Some, I will
accept, come from the left side of the equation; some, you need to accept, come
from the right. What we need to understand is that a vast number of
answers come from somewhere in between (normal distribution curve
anyone?). If we refuse to accept this and squash any discussion about
something we don’t agree with, we will miss out on many of the solutions we
need to continually improve America. Heck, I’m also willing to at least
listen to logical arguments about global climate change
(all the conservatives are now going “Boooooooo!”). But being willing to
engage in civil discourse means we also have to be willing to listen to
something we don’t agree with to understand the other side.
My self-actualization is this: I
identified my “triggers” (to use a term from the left) and have adapted a
second set of filters that reduce my response to them so I can listen. I
want to listen to those ideas and beliefs I once considered foreign.
Because only working together can we find the answers we are looking for, not
be alienating each other. This doesn't mean I'll always agree with you,
but it does mean I'll listen better. But what do I know? I’m not
Maslow. This is just my two
cents … for what it’s worth.
Image from: Mind-Mastery. http://www.mind-mastery.com/article/313/Self-Actualization-Test-Maslow-Hierarchy-of-Needs
Comments
Post a Comment