[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

philosophy of self-determinism, the way the idea was phrased -- "a gap between stimulus and response"
-- hit me with fresh, almost unbelievable force. It was almost like "knowing it for the first time," like an
inward revolution, "an idea whose time had come."
I reflected on it again and again, and it began to have a powerful effect on my paradigm of life. It
was as if I had become an observer of my own participation. I began to stand in that gap and to look
outside at the stimuli. I reveled in the inward sense of freedom to choose my response -- even to
become the stimulus, or at least to influence it -- even to reverse it.
Shortly thereafter, and partly as a result of this "revolutionary" idea, Sandra and I began a practice of
THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE Brought to you by FlyHeart
deep communication. I would pick her up a little before noon on an old red Honda 90 trail cycle, and
we would take our two preschool children with us -- one between us and the other on my left knee -- as
we rode out in the canefields by my office. We rode slowly along for about an hour, just talking.
The children looked forward to the ride and hardly ever made any noise. We seldom saw another
vehicle, and the cycle was so quiet we could easily hear each other. We usually ended up on an
isolated beach where we parked the Honda and walked about 200 yards to a secluded spot where we
ate a picnic lunch.
The sandy beach and a freshwater river coming off the island totally absorbed the interest of the
children, so Sandra and I were able to continue our talks uninterrupted. Perhaps it doesn't take too
much imagination to envision the level of understanding and trust we were able to reach by spending
at least two hours a day, every day, for a full year in deep communication.
At the very first of the year, we talked about all kinds of interesting topics -- people, ideas, events,
the children, my writing, our family at home, future plans, and so forth. But little by little, our
communication deepened and we began to talk more and more about our internal worlds -- about our
upbringing, our scripting, our feelings, and self-doubts. As we were deeply immersed in these
communications, we also observed them and observed ourselves in them. We began to use that space
between stimulus and response in some new and interesting ways which caused us to think about how
we were programmed and how those programs shaped how we saw the world.
We began an exciting adventure into our interior worlds and found it to be more exciting, more
fascinating, more absorbing, more compelling, more filled with discovery and insight than anything
we'd even known in the outside world.
It wasn't all "sweetness and light." We occasionally hit some raw nerves and had some painful
experiences, embarrassing experiences, self-revealing experiences -- experiences that made us extremely
open and vulnerable to each other. And yet we found we had been wanting to go into those things for
years. When we did go into the deeper, more tender issues and then came out of them, we felt in some
way healed.
We were so initially supportive and helpful, so encouraging and empathic to each other, that we
nurtured and facilitated these internal discoveries in each other.
We gradually evolved two unspoken ground rules. The first was "no probing." As soon as we
unfolded the inner layers of vulnerability, we were not to question each other, only to empathize.
Probing was simply too invasive. It was also too controlling and too logical. We were covering new,
difficult terrain that was scary and uncertain, and it stirred up fears and doubts. We wanted to cover
more and more of it, but we grew to respect the need to let each other open up in our own time.
The second ground rule was that when it hurt too much, when it was painful, we would simply quit
for the day. Then we would either begin the next day where we left off or wait until the person who
was sharing felt ready to continue. We carried around the loose ends, knowing that we wanted to deal
with them. But because we had the time and the environment conducive to it, and because we were so
excited to observe our own involvement and to grow within our marriage, we simply knew that sooner
or later we would deal with all those loose ends and bring them to some kind of closure.
The most difficult, and eventually the most fruitful part of this kind of communication came when
my vulnerability and Sandra's vulnerability touched. Then, because of our subjective involvement, we
found that the space between stimulus and response was no longer there. A few bad feelings surfaced.
But our deep desire and our implicit agreement was to prepare ourselves to start where we left off and
deal with those feelings until we resolved them.
One of those difficult times had to do with a basic tendency in my personality. My father was a
very private individual -- very controlled and very careful. My mother was and is very public, very
open, very spontaneous. I find both sets of tendencies in me, and when I feel insecure, I tend to
become private, like my father. I live inside myself and safely observe.
THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE Brought to you by FlyHeart
Sandra is more like my mother -- social, authentic, and spontaneous. We had gone through many
experiences over the years in which I felt her openness was inappropriate, and she felt my constraint
was dysfunctional, both socially and to me as an individual because I would become insensitive to the
feelings of others. All of this and much more came out during those deep visits. I came to value
Sandra's insight and wisdom and the way she helped me to be a more open, giving, sensitive, social
person.
Another of those difficult times had to do with what I perceived to be a "hang up" Sandra had which
had bothered me for years. She seemed to have an obsession about Frigidaire appliances which I was
at an absolute loss to understand. She would not even consider buying another brand of appliance.
Even when we were just starting out and on a very tight budget, she insisted that we drive the fifty
miles to the "big city" where Frigidaire appliances were sold, simply because no dealer in our small
university town carried them at that time.
This was a matter of considerable agitation to me. Fortunately, the situation came up only when
we purchased an appliance. But when it did come up, it was like a stimulus that triggered off a hot
button response. This single issue seemed to be symbolic of all irrational thinking, and it generated a
whole range of negative feelings within me.
I usually resorted to my dysfunctional private behavior. I suppose I figured that the only way I
could deal with it was not to deal with it; otherwise, I felt I would lose control and say things I shouldn't
say. There were times when I did slip and say something negative, and I had to go back and
apologize.
What bothered me the most was not that she liked Frigidaire, but that she persisted in making what
I considered utterly illogical and indefensible statements to defend Frigidaire which had no basis in fact
whatsoever. If she had only agreed that her response was irrational and purely emotional, I think I
could have handled it. But her justification was upsetting.
It was sometime in early spring when the Frigidaire issue came up. All our prior communication
had prepared us. The ground rules had been deeply established -- not to probe and to leave it alone if
it got to be too painful for either or both.
I will never forget the day we talked it through. We didn't end up on the beach that day; we just [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]