Growth On Toe After Pedicure

HAPPY 2008 NEW PARADIGM OF COMMUNICATION-Organizational Management Training

BASES OF THE NEW PARADIGM OF COMMUNICATION
Management Training Because

I received several requests from readers of the blog to my email box, I decided to upload a transcription of the first part of training to 25 managers, where the center of the conversation revolves around the new paradigm of communication I propose. I welcome your comments
Best Regards, Fernando Sáenz
------------------------------------- Ford

-------------------------------------------------- ----------
August 2007 -
Training for 25 managers of a service company.
THE NEW COMMUNICATION
of mechanical communication, conversation dynamic.

(...) And before you start to just get into the issue that brings us together, I recognize many who have inspired me in my constant path of learning. As we will discuss today will be present, so from now on my thanks to them. In these few names I recognize so many: family, where the air I breathed a child trigger the desire to dive into "human." My wife, witness, support and participated. A teacher of life and profession in which basis of my proposal: as Carlos Marín, Mario Rosen, Jim Selman, Elena Espinal, Rafael Echeverria, Humberto Maturana and Ximena Davila.

Let me begin by asking a question. And I think the answers that trial, agree to all of you ... to hold! What will this coach we now?
(laughs)

Well ... the question is: Why are paid in their companies? What do you do for which they receive a salary to make ends meet, and some interesting bonus at the end of the period?

- For work.
- For driving groups.
- For a series of tasks, such as motivation.
- I think we pay for achieving results.

That last response raises an interesting discussion. Do I get paid for work performed or specific outcomes of my work? I think today the two views are taken into account. So part of your income is fixed and a variable. Yet there is something more fundamental is going on in all that you have given.
How do your job, your daily tasks? What process is present in the drive, motivation, and achieving results?

- And there must be other people, who motivate employees, who driving.

So for your job can be done, you need another. Is that what we all agree?
(Most of these say "if")

And what are the others?

- We communicate. We directives and to monitor compliance.
- If ... I also hear complaints, problems, proposals. It's a return. Exactly

! We talked! I'm going to differentiate "communicate" to "talk." What happens while doing her job is talking. How are we doing now in this meeting. We're talking. Me I get paid to talk with you! Then we can tell if any, or no communication. But that does not interest us as it happens the experience of conversation. Just talk. Whether there is good communication, is an explanation after this experience we are having.
Something happened, and say ... this is good communication! But what happened is not "communication", is conversation. "Communication" is the title we put on the experience of talking.
In 95% of the organizations, it says at some point, they have communication problems. And do not say 100% to leave a margin of error. I listen
ineffective and reductionist, talk communication problems. We refer to the "communication" as "something", an entity called communication that exists in the world regardless of who sets it apart. It is up to something that is broken and must be fixed.

- If it is true. But when said communication, I mean people who communicate better or worse.

course ... always involve people. What we call communication, is an explanation that an observer makes about how other coordinated actions. What I am saying ... is that we are alert to not lose ourselves as implementers of communication, when we say "the problem is poor communication." No communication going round the world alone. When it comes to communication, we are talking about us, our relationships, our emotions, to talk.
The risk of speaking of poor communication as a "something" that gives life, is that the responsibility for the lack of coordination, conflicts, double messages and poor results, leaving you safe. The problem is not me, you're not. The problem is poor communication.
And at most tell us to take a course in "Management Directorate, where theorizing about communication, we played some out of context to our reality, we see some tools and do group work. This is insufficient because it is responsible for:

1) Understanding what happens in experience. Only focuses on an explanatory model.
2) Of the people, being that sets everything possible "good communication." No transformational learning, but only a collection of new tools ... the carpenter is just the same, only now with a new saw.

In conclusion, conversation is like the experience of almorzarte your favorite dish. communication is like the cookbook almorzarte Dona Petrona, explaining the components of your favorite food. Am I clear?
(laughs)
The book is the explanation of experience.

So we will focus on conversation. And you need to do their job, they should talk. How much daily homework time is spent in meetings?

- Mucho!
- Sometimes too much.

And what do while in meetings?

- We look at the time (laughs)
- Yeah ... talk ... all the time ... less Esteban (fictitious name) that look at the time while working. (Laughs)

is interesting what he says Esteban. Beyond the joke, it happens very often. Meetings tedious, tense or boring. Maybe it's the weekly meeting with your direct manager, to talk concerns and alignment. All excited pledged to prioritize the weekly meeting. But after some time, start late, some do not attend because they have urgent business, but others are not involved since they are still talking about the same, and finally, almost without thinking, the alignment weekly meeting is dissolved, leaving a sense of downtime, and a basic emotional resignation, or perhaps resentment.
(Laughter accomplices)

- seems to be working in my company. (Laughs)

The second part the day will propose some "conversational patterns" to have effective meetings, welfare to meet and coordinate actions.
But back to the point. Why pay them in their businesses? BY TALK.
seems strange, right? Sure it's not all talk, is a particular kind of conversation that produces the kind of task that you undertake from the moment he assumed the management role.
So ... What do we do when we are in meetings with our partners? What do we do when we're selling to a customer? What do we do when we are in the quarterly meeting? What do we do when we speak in conference call with our regional peers? What do we do when we send an email, or use the intranet? What we do when we talk by phone with a supplier? What do we do when we make a "brainstorming"? CONVERSATIONS.
the leader, drive, motivate and monitor occurs in conversations.
estimated the news again ... is that managers get paid for talking.
Now ... What needs to happen a conversation?

- a transmitter and a receiver.

Well we can distinguish two elements. In my saying I'm going to change the titles, that delivery of a background different from the conventional communication model. Instead of transmitter, receiver, I'll call him: He and listener. Because the transmitter and receiver, from a mechanical understanding, which seeks to describe the communication, not conversation.
I will take what you brought with your response to discuss the traditional model of communication
What does the traditional model of communication?
(Silence)

We ... hear all about communication. I remember in 7th grade in high school, and taught us the basics. Was the cartoon in Kapeluz Manual. Already mentioned two elements: transmitter and receiver. What's next?

- The message, which is what connects the receiver to the sender. There are different channels through which to convey the message. It may be in a meeting by telephone, mail,
- There is a feedback.

Exactly! What we would be missing the code, noise, context, and we have the complete recipe for a model of communication.

A model is not what happens, but a representation of what happens, in an attempt to explain the experience, so that we can be more effective.

If we pay attention to this basic model as it is presented, able to distinguish which model is imported from a radio signal broadcaster. The station transmits a message that needs to be coded electrical impulses at a specific frequency. The message travels through a channel : electromagnetic waves, cable, microwave, or whatever. Finally the message is received by a receiver which to play the message decodes electrical impulses into sounds, and Gual! : We have music on the radio in our car.
have had the experience of listening to interference their favorite radio stations, either by weather conditions, power and distance of the transmitter, receiver low battery, etc. These interferences are noise.
So here we have a linear mechanical model, which hardly represents the human dimensions of communication.
But get out the chatter and let's try this model body. Let us be the same measuring instruments. I propose to have fun with a game ... shall we?

(the activity is performed)

As we have seen in the game, the experience itself, there is no such thing called "communication." No conversation. No messages flying around, no noise in the environment. And what I hear the alleged recipient is not the same man who said the alleged sender. This practice will been at work, employees Or do you always understand and do what you ask?
(laughs)

Now, if we compare the communication model with the model, the radio station mechanic. What is needed?

- the feedback.

Right. What has become of cybernetics, as expressed in the theory of communication, is the feedback, not only as a return from the receiver to the sender (which removes it from the passivity of just receiving), but involves a dynamic feedback loop where the transmitter and receiver are correcting deviations, with each feedback to reach the communication effective. Therefore linear causality is broken up and the circularity, which not only causes B, but B causes A, appearing as many theoretical developments, as the axioms of Paul Watzlawick, who consider them a great addition.

But we still have a mechanical model, now circular, communication.
Did humans exist and are interrelated, like the mechanical systems work?

course not. Nothing of this model is observable facts. They are interpretations, inferences from observed behavior, which we define as a paradigm "unquestionable" of communication. I insist. While I'm in this time talking to you, there is no message in the air flying. So let us then what is observable if: Conversations.
As we begin to say, there is at least one speaker and a listener. You and me.
not sending or receiving. Begin to humanize what belongs to the realm of human and mechanism that belongs to the realm of mechanics.
course, the concept goes beyond "He " as the articulation of words, and " listener" as a spectator of those words. He could make signs. For example, in Buenos Aires, when you go to a restaurant, and want to order a coffee, make a sign to the waiter. What is the password?
(The public makes the sign)

Or when to order an employee, want to say "NO" subtly. What sign are you doing?
That is what happens between the speaker and the listener, are coordination of actions (whether gestural and / or spoken). People with hearing disabilities, coordinate activities, but without spoken words.

Communication based on listening
And I want to mark a turning point in the proposal that I invite you to explore. The traditional communication model is based on the issuer, as the more active role in communication. Who makes the first move is the issuer. The single word "issuer" denotes the action of passing. The receiver is the most passive of this model. Does not move, only to be quietesito and let the message out, like a bowl.
While the notion of feedback, and circularity, the issuer is also recipient and vice versa, it is just a rotation in the roles. Always remain a person who is receiving at any given moment (beyond that then do issuer) and the time is performing the passive role. Even if we say that the two roles occur simultaneously, the size that occurs as a receiver, is a passive dimension. The receiver is not a domain of action .

Instead look at where we take care of that there are conversations that occur between a speaker and a listener, we turn to ponder the listener in a completely different receiver. The action listener is listening.

Here I make an exception. Is not the same listening to hear. If we analyze the phenomenon of hearing from engineering, we could talk about sound waves, speed of sound, Doppler effect, etc.. Or we could analyze the hearing of the physiology and discuss the hearing. This is not what I mean when I say "listen." Everything else is present as a structure for listening occur. But when I speak of listening, I mean a generative phenomenon, where the nature of the hearing goes through the social, historical, and emotional.

The first question was: Why do they pay in their companies?
Now do the second fundamental question of this first part of the day: What we mean?

- To convey something.
- so you know what I think
- To express

And what is the meaning to express yourself?

- And for example, that my team know what you think about how they performed on an assigned task
home
words we spoke, speak to be HEARD

- Yes ... as is!

If you want to convey, you want to know, what you express, is not heard ... Does it make sense? Talking without listening loses all power, all validity. Our speech comes alive in the listening of another. VALID
LISTENING TO THE TALK. You speak without my hearing, just do not know what it is ... because you never hear it, did not exist for me. Without you listen to my words, it makes no sense, because the primary meaning of all talk is given by the listener listening.
exist for others in his hearing, not what we do or say. Each of you is responsible for giving life to another, from listening. When we call "not listen" is not just about that the other wants you to know your opinions, or their projects, or problems. The other is claiming lives. The other is saying ... hey here I am, pay attention, listen!
should have more courses of "listening" rather than speaking.

This what I'm saying is that listening is a domain of action. We can intervene in our listening. This afternoon we distinguish different types of listening. For now I suggest that depending on how you listen, you will reveal a world or another. Are you really listening to your people? You know what worries them, what they need, what are your wishes?

- I tell you I'm realizing I do not listen ... I do not know how to listen. What happens is there's not much time to pause.

is wonderful that you recognize that you're not listening. I say if you listen, because the recognition that do not listen, and involves the act of listening. Are you listening, and I thank you because you give validity to my words, and above all you are listening, because you could think about yourself and your actions.
Yes, I know that everyday working life is full of emergencies, from fires to extinguish. But I must make note that while you putting out fires, you are also in the action of listening. On the other hand, if you are a manager, and you realize you're not listening to your people, I would say that you evaluate it as the first major fire to extinguish. Think you can do something about it?

- Ok, Thanks .... If, tomorrow, I chat with some of my most important collaborators.

Great. I want to tell my version of a short story that I heard my colleague Marcelo Krynski few years ago. They say a monkey fell into a deep and fast flowing river. The monkey tried to fight for his life, but the water pressure was too much. When the monkey was about to choke someone's hand was rescued, and pulled him out of the river, leaving it in the bank. The story does not say who saved him, but that's not important. The important thing is that the monkey was so grateful that they saved her life, he decided to spend the rest of his days on the banks of the river, and save others, as they did with it. So every time I saw a fish in the rushing water, take it out of the water to save ...
( The audience is silent for a moment, then smile some )

The monkey thought that he needed, was what same as needed for other ... And you did it with good intentions. But while he thought life was actually put to death, that forgot something basic: The other is another. It is not an "I" like me. The other is another, and is an "I" different from me, with different concerns, different needs, different experiences, desires and preferences differ.
Luckily we are not monkeys. We homo sapiens sapiens, privileged to reason and to be aware that the other is another, and I can not guess what the other needs at least hear him genuinely.
- I think that here are a few monkeys ... starting with me, Dad
mono (laughs )

're the alpha male! (Laughs ). Know ... listening is the hub of all communication. Listening is the communication gear. I do not speak of listening to corroborate what I already know. I speak of listening to hear the other. If there is any kind of leadership that takes over the conversation focused on listening, is the "servant leadership." What do you mean? What you as managers to lead the process of creating a work environment with clear objectives and the resources to which everyone can perform their role in the pleasure of doing what he does, on the welfare of everyday relationships. And for that they must meet their needs. And to satisfy your needs (those of their partners) is essential listening. Of course we speak of needs or concerns, or concerns, or preferences, specific to the operational coherences of the employment domain. If an employee has the worry of having to choose between going to the gym or swimming, is not something that is within the domain of operational coherences work. Some people love these topics, and are good to listen to the pain of others. However, the managerial role involves listening bias towards those pain, suffering, blocking, conflict, interesting, afflict them partners in the workplace. For the rest, there are other spaces.
Nor is it that if you satisfy desires. I once read that the difference between a leader and a slave is great and subtle. A slave subject to any wish of his master. A leader meets the needs of its employees within the operational coherences of his work. When do I want? When is it necessary? When is it fancy? Well ... that it may reflect only if they listen, but not even a question. How long
not look into the eyes of your partner at work and you ask: do you need from me?, Without waiting for an answer that you know a priori. It is not just looking ... is seeing the other. It is saying with the attitude "I see, here I am."

We used to greet in the company to "animate things" that lurk in the corridors and rest at their desks. Coordinate actions among us like machines to produce. You can break that!. You're not a receiver. You're a listener, a person with the reorientation of your listening, you can set up new relationships, new "realities", new people, and new results.

- Phew. Reconnect with the human dimension of my work makes me realize that I'm structured.

Tell me more about this structure?

( Talks between Fernando coaching with participants, with specific examples of working life )

Chat: emotion + coordination of actions
We still have a fundamental element of the conversation: emotions. Any coordination of actions between speakers and listeners, occurs in a thrill. The excitement is like the soundtrack to a movie. The same scene can be seen as comedy or drama, depending on the music scene. With the talks is the same. Open and close coordination of action possible, according to the emotionality of the conversation.
Moreover, any rational argument you take on the emotional conversation is basic premises.
Tell a colleague: "Congratulations for reaching the goal, expected no less of you" can be heard in different ways according to the emotionality, where it is said, and from where it is heard.
Therefore, in order to bring us together on this day, I shall suggest that talk is a dynamic coordination of actions, including at least one speaker and a listener, intertwined "always" with an emotional base. Talk is a braid between coordinate actions and move .


why communication can not be learned only as a series of "competencies" or "management skills" (skill) to address poor communication, since it is not a phenomenon that belongs to the domain of individuals and their rationality, It arises in emotional dynamics that occurs in everyday living. It is a systemic phenomenon of social construction. Speaker or listener

occur in each participant in the conversation as a whole. While I'm talking about ... I'm being speaker, and yet I'm still listening because I keep hearing, for example, the embodiment of you. When I mean listen, goes far beyond the sense of hearing. A deaf can "hear" may be listening, because you can play the other from other senses. Therefore, as I said, as I speak, I see their corporeality, I am attentive to the movement of the foot of Henry, the slope of Mariela from them narrate the story of monkey, hear the sighs of Gabriel, and I see Paul to close and open the lid of his cell. That is, I am the speaker and listener at the same time. And while you are not only heard, but have a dialogue with yourself about what is happening here and now. Ie being speakers and listeners in a private conversation, while they are there in an apparent silence passive receiver.
So all we are in a unique time in which we are speakers and listeners at the same time. We are living and living in constant conversations, whether public or private. The duality that we can distinguish between speaker and listener serves to explain and to intervene in the talks, but there one without the other, happens in us as a whole.
The following graphs represent different levels of conversation. It is not what happens. Is another model. But I think it represents more effectively the phenomenon of conversation.
I propose a cut of 20 minutes, and return back to play another time to continue experimenting, the different circumstances that displays the graph. After lunch, and the second board of the day: Conversations Conversations that describe and transform, types of listening, and see if today we talk about "patterns" conversational for meetings in the welfare and effectiveness.
See you in 20 minutes (Applause.)

Nadine Jansen Driving

VALUES -

Wooden Beer Cask For Sale Calgary

VALUE VALUE MADE ME OR NOT MEET

Oscar Nuñez said:
Dear Fernando, so I draw your attention to paragraph 10 where he comments

10) Blaming the other for what I did or did not comply, it is not justice. It is giving power to the other, assuming as a victim, and disappear as being "autonomous."

refractivity that blame the other can make me disappear as being "autonomous" and that failure to take care of me, I choose to commit myself to my "ego" and give him control of myself and do the other, of course, as I do this to me!.

Now as for the other "failed" with the conditions of satisfaction "promised", I understand that the claim to another, not the fault of another, I committed to an observer and was legitimate to me and the other as other .

no longer a question of "me" is equal to not want me, but this is my being consistent com make and declare my dissatisfaction with what you like another you commit to do.

makes me responsible for not victim, so that the guilt and shame will not be invited.

Thanks for the invitation to reflection. Oscar Nuñez


Fernando Sáenz Ford says
Dear Oscar: I say Item 10 is an invitation to you responsibility as the plants.
(10: Blaming the other for what I did or did not comply, it is not justice. It is giving power to the other, assuming as a victim, and disappear as being "autonomous.")

think I would therefore agree to you plant the distinction between "me" or "failed."

- "I did ": no explicit promise. It has to do with my expectations on the other, or simply a fortuitous circumstance where I am concerned with doing the other. For example I bump the car. Before an accident or an expectation not fulfilled, I can operate from the emotionality of the blame, saying "I did it," losing autonomy. Or I can run from responsibility, autonomy, and maintaining the commitment to respect my wishes and preferences.

- " not fulfilled" promise is explicit. If the promise was coordinated in clear terms (who, how, when), and the other did not comply, I can operate consistently with the guilt. Bring with me to say a whole emotional world of guilt that arises is the requirement, the control, subjugation and manipulation, losing the core of what we wanted to happen, and therefore my autonomy. In this emotionally available actions are the complaint, anger, resentment, hearing, etc..
course to an incomplete promise, I can operate in the coherence of the responsibility of the observer given by the assertion valid that there is no reality independent of the observer. We bring an emotional world that emerges from liability, where the other appears as legitimate other in coexistence with me, even when non-compliance. In this emotional actions that are available are responsible for the claim, the reconfiguration of the promise, forgiveness, and even the ending of a relationship, either, work, couple, family or community friendly.

For example:
1st case: Stephen direct collaborator of Alexander, fails to deliver the report on the sales of product "X" during the month of September. Alejandro talks to Stephen about the consequences of non compliance, the breakdown in trust, and the delay in the analysis of the projections that Alexander has to give to your Regional Manager. Converse
setting a context, psychological or niche, where both are legitimate, assuming the consequences of failed action coordination. This may include a decrease in score on the quarterly performance review of Stephen, and a request for extension of time of Alexander to the Regional Manager to present projections.

2nd case: Esteban Alejandro direct collaborator, fails to deliver the report on the sales of product "X" during the month of September. Alejandro scolded, do not ask for anything again, Stephen speaks ill of other pairs, and justifies the ineffectiveness of Esteban its own delay in presenting the projections of the month at the Regional Manager. Of course I will report in the quarterly report. Stephen fights back, tries to explain, but not accepted his explanation. Stephen feels misunderstood, and recent. Emotionality in the company becomes a dialogue with Alejandro, creating a context, a psychological niche where only grow what is consistent with that niche: reactive action. Each responds by saying, doing or not doing the other, losing their autonomy.

Dear Oscar, thank you very much for your feedback
Greetings Fernando Sáenz Ford

What Should I Put On A 12 Birthday Card

BASIS OF GUILT AND SHAME

Eugenio says:
can extend the point 9, for details.
A hug from Barcelona. Eugenio
Gavez


Dear Eugene:
With this answer does not only mean to satisfy your concerns on item 9 (guilt and shame for my mistake, not taking the error. Is suffering in fantasy to compensate for the error to preserve the appearance) but I tried an article that takes over most of the above-described. Many
Thanks for triggering me this opportunity to express themselves.

BASIS OF GUILT AND SHAME


A true beginning
Guilt and shame are cultural phenomena based on patriarchy and the paradigm of "transcendent truth", ie the notion that truth exists independently of the observer that we are each of us. When we are living on the understanding that there is an objective truth, and therefore a right way of being and doing, we reject our own desires and preferences, and at the heart of our doing what it should be. Traditionally
guilt arises when I judge what I do or I, damaged another. And the shame is when by my doing, or I can do, I feel I can damage my self-image. Innocence
appropriate

kids, for not meeting expectations of others, shares punished us away from legitimacy, they are actions of indifference, where we are "seen" or be taken into account by those people you trust (parents , brothers, teachers, etc.). We love given according to our results, in the belief that it is "right." I'm giving the bike if you behave well in school. You can not play with your buddies for a week that has brought very low scores in math.
When I speak of love, I'm not referring to a feeling I have for the other. I speak of love in terms of actions that define it. Behind the word love (noun), lies the foundation of it, which is to love (verb). No love without loving. In the words of Humberto Maturana, " love is the emotional underpinning the human (...) is the emotion that constitutes the accept the other's actions as a legitimate other in coexistence. (...) Love is not a phenomenon Biological rare or special, everyday is a biological phenomenon " (*)
Differentiating love as a domain that defines the actions which the other appears legitimate I refer to a relationship where the other does not, or feel you want to be changed. All processing occurs in the spontaneity of live together, not as an attempt to bring someone else on behalf of what it should be.
For example: 1st case: It may happen that a father is doctor and the interaction of a family where medicine is part of everyday life, the child learns to prefer the spontaneity of everyday medicine as a profession to follow. There is no submission, no expectations. Whether the child continue to medicine, as if following another road is being legitimized. They are in love.
2nd case: a father may be medical and family tradition or at parents believe it is appropriate for the future of the child, harass (rewards and / or penalties) to keep medicine (and no other race). Here's expectations, pressure, demands, and subjugation. Even when parents want their child, they are falling out of love.

When children live together in the repetition of interrelationships of indifference, began to assemble an appearance to be accepted and respected by a world that denies us, and we demand results. Of course parents, siblings, teachers, etc. We may want a lot, but they are not aware of this disclaimer. And because we lived and live in love, it hurts us and hurts the heartbreak.
How do you feel a little girl when your grandmother asks you to do the little dance he learned in preschool, in return for chocolate? How do you feel the little boy who soils his panties again, and puts away offended adult body? What happens to children when, because of the birth of a sibling, parents say " are now big boy, we have to deal with your brother ?
not born with looks, nor guilt, nor shame, as cultural phenomena occur, based on indifference.

When we grow in coexistence with indifference, the need to make an appearance, based on the emotional demands and control in performance under constant review.

When the reflection is more important than the reflected
In this relational context, as adults, when we do not meet our expectations comes the guilt and punishment have learned. Our physicality is narrow and restrict our world of possibilities. Suffer to compensate for alleged misconduct.
walked down the street and hit someone with no intention ... appears to blame. We kept saying to someone we feel guilt and then .... We did not meet the proposed objectives and ... feel guilt.
Now what do I agree with the guilt? The fallacy is to justify the guilt, as a concern for the other. There is a commitment to each other, in the sense of taking responsibility for what I did (or did). The commitment to blame is to preserve the appearance that I have of me. The commitment of guilt is based on fear ... fear of losing the image and not loved. Guilt is a cult of the ego. So we live in the belief that it hurt me, it balances the damage done. Guilt is a scourge order to manipulate the emotions of others, and protect my image.

this way of living, emerge the archetype of the "victim" or martyr. The victim or martyr ultimately seeking approval, recognition, love knows no generation. And it never will be able to generate while operating from the appearance, because the prevailing emotional is that of inauthenticity, where he is being denied.
The victim was ingenious method of "mea culpa" for others comforted by so much suffering. The other end saying, "hey no big deal," it's all good "," everyone makes mistakes "" As you know I . " Whenever

identified blame on me, I am genuinely concerned about the other, or respect, but I am worrying about the appearance.
Every culture has moral standards of behavior subject to an objective reality that tells us is right, wrong. So even feel guilt (suffering), to succeed, and fail, to have money, no money, or even feel guilty for loving. Whether I'm feeling the guilt, as if blame to another, we rely on the expectation of a pattern that fits as they should be things, as a metaphysical truth that exists independently of our living.

Why a windmill tour?
consider relevant at this point to bring distinction to the observer. Each of us is an observer who sees, hears and feels from itself. There is no knowing who is out of the experience. We know what we know from ourselves. To the same event, different place comments different observers.
As I wrote a few days ago Ximena Davila: " are disjoint domains." The experience of each one belongs to everyone. It is from the culture centered on the objective truth that we claim to be because of what happens to the others. The others have closed their own dynamic and determined its structure. Although we share a common biological organization, each observer is a different structure, which is configured itself to the history of each one, ie the experiences of living and coexisting. In other words, what I do, on the other triggers a process that is typical of the other, and not my doing. I do not determine the happens to the other, is another structure that determines its own happen. What happens to me is not the result of the world (the other, that), but I bring a world at hand, from my own watch and do. Why
a windmill spins ?...¿ For the wind? If by the wind, also a silo (grain container) would revolve. The windmill moves because its structure is coupled with the wind in such a way that raises the turn. No blame is the wind that moves the mill. The mill is responsible for their turn. Like every human being is responsible for his life and the environment it creates with that life. This has nothing to do with guilt. Turn


look
However can turn a mill itself, but not being a human being, not self-generate. And no human being can not think, because you can not live in the emotion of love, or language. Both the love and language, are human and we can ask ourselves, and ask for our doing. We are the only animal that is asked for his "being" and "do", turning his eyes to how we live, and how we live.
observer
When I reflect on my watch as a life that belongs to me, no objective truth, then the fault does not occur. Responsibility arises as to take care of: 1) I want, 2) my actions 3) the consequences of my actions. So we can take remedial action if my error harm to another, in trust to reflect together about what happened.

In this way of living and cohabiting in reflection, there is no compromise with the appearance, there is no requirement emotionality, control, evaluation. There are no close body. Here we set a world based on respect for the preferences and desires of each. We are committed to the relationship and joint projects, releasing the attachment to the image in trust to be seen and respected for our individuality, even though travel often involves pain. Respect based on love, not to be condescending or reverent, the respect is to stay in the center of self, authenticity, legitimizing live on the other, though not a desirable living.

Swallow me earth
Shame source has the same fault. Its origin, development and conservation, is supported by indifference. Shame the distinction as a dynamic body that sets the limit of my actions. The shame I can see as a blatant body contraction that limits me to express myself out of respect for my wishes, preferences and concerns. When I say be in shame, I can not say everything I think, I can not do everything I want, I can not choose freely from what I prefer, I let talk about everything that bothers me

If we look in shame, we see that our physicality changes. Perhaps we blush, contract some muscles, breathing accelerates, more supplies blood to the extremities, the brain receives less oxygen, appears extraordinary breathability, etc. When we are in shame, there is a "feel" of "earth swallow me, as if he wanted to be in this than I am. Is to refuse the experience I'm experiencing, is to deny the legitimacy of my life at that time. Shame the distinction as the body disposition that occurs in self-denial, and denial of recognition each experience as legitimate. Limits the spontaneity and the opportunity to experience the pleasure of doing what is right.

magic
Living In that Humberto Maturana, can not distinguish between perception and illusion . (*) For example: if I receive a phone call from a client and get confused with my partner, I will talk as if it was her. When I realize the error, there is shame. I had an experience (talking to my partner) and then breaks the experience with other experience, which makes me realize my mistake. The description of that error, and realize I was living an illusion, it happens "always" after the experience I will describe as illusory.
But while talking on the phone, I was talking to my partner. My emotionality was talking to her, the embodiment adopted was consistent with that time. Only after a while, when comparing this experience with someone who shows me my error, I can say that there was an error. The error or mistake can not be recognized as such in experience. Error is an explanation of subsequent experience. We do not know when we are wrong. If supi not be a mistake, would lie. So every experience is legitimate in itself. We do not know when something is an illusion, but it would be an illusion. We know in contrasting experience another, in this dispute.
are professional magicians illusions. These are illusions designed special events. But the spontaneous enthusiasm is part of our ordinary life, is part of the phenomenon of knowing. To live is magic, and mistakes are part of that magic.

Guilt is an experience that comes after the event. For example, my son yelled, and then feel guilty. The cry no error, the error arises in the explanation then I do. This distinction arises lightness, as opposed to emotional heaviness. Me permission to make mistakes, is taking charge to live life on the responsibility, not fall in the limited explanation of guilt or shame.

shame With this phenomenon also happens in the example of telephone call: talk on the phone, I realized the mistake and I feel shame. But shame is also emerging as a predisposition body, living the experience to predict the possibility of losing our appearance if I do (or not do) this or that action. That is, we live an experience that has not yet occurred, focusing on the possibility of rejection, such as fear of embarrassment and fear of failure. What is wrong with showing different to what I believe is expected of me? o What is wrong with not getting what they expect from me? In fact, there is nothing wrong. What you need is the threat of not being seen, not heard, not to be taken into account or not being recognized, well ... not being loved.

in shame as an experience before the event, we can not distinguish between illusion and perception. I can only tell whether or not it was an illusion, in comparison to what he thought would happen if triggered, and what finally experience while making it. For example, I can believe I'll make a fool out inviting the woman I love. How to know if it was an illusion or a perception? I can only know to do: ask out the woman that I love.

The drawback is that the shame body is the provision that limits the action of what may perjure my appearance, for that matter, no action, and I can never know whether it was an illusion. In the paradigm of objective truth, do not ask for the "illusion and perception," as the basic assumption is that we perceive reality, and find the truth in good reason, common sense. So do not question our way of observing, and reflection is not possible.

Following the example to woo women like me just will not. From the emotionality of shame, founded on a rejection, do not invite her out. The arguments are always based on rational emotional premises. Rationally argue therefore is not for me, I do not really like it so much better not jeopardize our friendship, mutilating my desires and denying myself. I'll never know it had happened if invited to leave, but I convince myself to do the right thing, holding my looks clean, and safeguarding the ego. Reflection



live In conclusion the guilt and shame are manifestations of indifference, its appearance, the paradigm based on objective reality.
appearance, and the ego occur in the action, are not components of our biology. The ego is a way of behaving, which focuses on the commitment to build a focus of my identity that I hold for others to respect me and love me.
Hold the ego is a constant tension, which I denied, and a source of suffering. On the other hand, if I can love me and respect me for what I appear, I'm caught in self-devaluation, and a deception for others and for me.
The more I buy for my appearance, I have to put more energy to maintain, more guilt, more shame, no more sorrow, more distance between want and what I do. Sometimes, following the coherence of living in the pretend, I can believe I am my appearance, adding the emotionality of resignation and resentment. Resignation expressed in conversations like: " this is what I am, is what I got, there's nothing I can do ." Up resentment in the complaint, injustice, revenge, and repressed anger towards another, the world and / or life.

How do I run from the shame and guilt? Without getting angry for behaving that way. If I feel I demand no more guilt and shame, I'm in the same paradigm that created it, reinforcing what I want to dissolve.
not a rational process is a process by which we reconfigure our basic emotional, reflection and conversation. Reflection on certainties to which we are attached, reflection about what "will" want for ourselves, we want to keep thinking about and we want to transform the way we relate to others, reflecting on that commitment we choose to build the world we bring to our doing. A great love


Ford

Fernando Saenz (*) Emotion and Language in Education Policy - JC Sáez -1990