Re: Internal resistance

Hi Malte,

 > It may well be that by finding out why we resist something we
 > find that there is a good reason for our resistance.

I believe that /every/ behavior comes from wonderful intentions. 
  When I choose not to do something I "know I should do," or when 
I choose to do something other than what I "know I should do," my 
choosing is a behavior.  My choice, then, comes from wonderful 
intentions.  As I'm exploring my reasons, if the intentions I've 
discovered do not seem like wonderful ones, that's a sign that I 
haven't yet found my real intentions.

When I'm resisting internally, there are (at least) two behaviors 
involved: the behavior that I "know I should do," and my choice 
not to do it.  Behind each behavior lie wonderful intentions. 
The dilemma is that I can't think of a behavior that satisfies 
both intentions.  One reason I can't think of a behavior that 
satisfies both intentions is that I'm aware only of the reasons I 
"should" do the "should" behavior, but I'm not aware of my 
equally wonderful intentions behind choosing not to do it.

The key for me is to explore the positive intentions behind both 
the "should" behavior and my choice not to do it.  When I'm aware 
of those intentions, I'm often able to find a way to satisfy 
both.  And sometimes I'm able to choose one intention over the 
other, and to be okay with that choice.  Either way, the 
resistance is resolved, at least for the moment.  Even if the 
resolution is only momentary, in that moment I can either fully 
do the thing I "know I should do," or fully choose not to do it.

I use two paths to explore my wonderful intentions.  The first is 
The Value Question:  "If I have <xyz> fully and completely, what 
does that do for me that is even more important?"

This path is easier to start if my resistance is coming out 
through some particular behavior.  For example, once upon a time, 
instead of working to build my business, which I "knew I should 
do," I spent many hours watching the O. J. Simpson trial.

So:  "If I watch the O. J. Simpson trial, fully and completely, 
what does that do for me that is even more important?"  Answer: 
"It keeps me from working to build my business."  Huh?  What a 
strange answer!  Why would I want that?  Well, it /was/ the 
answer, so let's run with it.  I can ask The Value Question 
again: "If I fully and completely avoid working to build my 
business, what does that do for me that's even more important?"

After a few more steps up the value hierarchy I come to an answer 
that feels like a positive intention:  "... then I would believe 
that I can succeed in this business."  After a few more steps, 
the deeper intentions feel wonderful:  "... then I would know 
that I matter in this world."  (Usually I stop when I find an 
intention that feels wonderful.  I could keep going until I reach 
what Connirae and Tamara Andreas call a "core state."  Following 
the chain all the way to a core state is a blissful experience. 
See the Andreas's book "Core Transformation" for more.)

Almost always, I find that if I look only at that beginning and 
end of the value chain I've elicited, it's clear that the full 
chain of logic doesn't hold up:  "If I watch the O. J. Simpson 
trial, fully and completely, then I would know that I matter in 
this world."  When I express it that way, it seems kinda goofy. 
Each step in the chain seemed like a plausible belief.  But some 
or all of those beliefs had errors (big or small), and the errors 
accumulated.  If I want to know that I matter in this world, I'm 
pretty sure I can find a more effective, less costly way to 
achieve that than watching the O. J. Simpson trial.

Sometimes my resistance doesn't come out in a specific behavior. 
  If that's the case, I can start exploring the value hierarchy 
by taking "avoiding" as the behavior I want to explore:  "If I 
fully and completely avoid working on building my business, what 
does that do for me that is even more important?"

The other path is sort of the same as the first path, but walked 
in the other direction:  "If I were to do <whatever behavior I'm 
resisting>, what (bad thing) would happen?"  I learned this from 
Jerry Weinberg, who learned it from Virginia Satir.  They use it 
as a way to explore "survival rules."  So I call this question 
The Survival Question.

For example, "If I were to work on building my business, what 
would happen?"  Answer: "I might find out that I can't succeed." 
   Then I can ask the next question:  "If I find out that I can't 
succeed, what would happen then?"

Like the Value Question path, the Survival Question path also 
elicits a chain of beliefs and values.  The difference is that 
while the Value Question elicits a chain that feels more and more 
wonderful, and ends in a blissful "core state," the Survival 
Question elicits a chain that feels more and more painful, and 
often ends (if you care to follow it that far) in "... then I 
would die."  And like the Value Question path, the beliefs have 
errors that accumulate.  "If I work to build my business ... then 
I will die?"  Seems unlikely.

I've found that both paths are powerful and effective, and given 
that they both work so well, I'd much rather follow the Value 
Question path, in which each step gives me a deeper and deeper 
experience of life.  But when the Value Question doesn't pan out, 
I can always try the other path.

Dale

-- 
Dale Emery -- Consultant -- Resistance as a Resource
Web:    http://www.dhemery.com
Weblog: http://www.dhemery.com/journal (Conversations with Dale)



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mk9osC/hP.FAA/3jkFAA/X1EolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/