inquiry – cocostudio

March 2, 2015February 7, 2019

Toklat

Today’s readings investigated individual rights and liberty. We had two sessions – one in the morning and one in the evening. In the morning we tackled Aristotle, Rousseau, Sumner and the Declaration of Independence.

We discussed the Aristotelian notions of place in society, including the positionality of slaves and masters. We wondered what Rousseau meant by free when he wrote of forcing a man to be free who refuses to obey the general will. We debated the merits of the Declaration of Independence, from the use of the language to its call to action. We closed with The Challenge of Facts, a clearly written document that, among other things, seems to indulge in victim blaming.

I like the ways the facilitators ask framing questions. What would Hobbs say about this? What might Aristotle say to that? These sorts of questions challenge us to reconsider old understandings and bridge the new ones.

After some down time, we ventured up the mountain to a cabin called Toklat. There we enjoyed a discussion of Melville’s Billy Budd, closing the night wondering what Captain Vere could’ve or should’ve done differently. It’s an interesting exercise to imagine how we’d be better or different leaders under similar circumstances. I think that’s the key, really. The ability to imagine different outcomes keeps us youthful and agile.

—
Read the next post in the Aspen Seminar series.

March 1, 2015February 7, 2019

First Full Day

And so concludes the first full day of the Aspen Seminar. I’ve done a few group events over the years, but this one is the first one where such significant bonding occurs so quickly. We’ve had a few meals together and several hours of pointed conversation, and that’s been enough for individuals to connect while the whole group creates its own personality. It’s fascinating really.

Today’s session was on human nature. Our readings included Aristotle, Hobbs and Darwin. We discussed each text to understand what the authors said, whether or not we agree with their argument, and how we can apply the text to our leadership contexts.

At one point I talked about the importance of cultivating the potential inherent in each individual. My point echoed a key idea in Nichiren’s cherry, plum, peach, damson teaching. In brief, each plant is valuable in its own right, and need not strive to mask its uniqueness nor work to be like another plant in order to reach its full potential.

Our inquiry was essentially: what is the inherent quality of humans? Before a corrupting influence, who are we and how do we behave? The essence of the oak tree is contained within the acorn. An acorn is never going to be something else other than an oak tree, although circumstances can prevent it from growing or hamper it from reaching its full potential.

Your leadership style rests in part on what you believe to be true about human nature. Like Mencius, I believe humans are inherently good. The leader’s role, then, is recognizing the potential we each have, and cultivating it. Of course not everyone agrees with this, and again it’s the disagreement that makes the Conversation worthy to take place.

Today was a full day. Tomorrow, we meet again.

—
Read the next post in the Aspen Seminar series.

February 28, 2015February 7, 2019

Opening

We just concluded the opening session of the seminar. We’ll be here another six days so there’s a lot in store. There are many brilliant thinkers here, and it’s going to be a challenge for me to step out of my listening stance to speak more. A lot of good insights arose in a very short time, and I can see how these readings and discussions will build on each other throughout the week.

We have two capable moderators in Jerald and David. Jerald led the opening reception and introductions while David facilitated the opening discussion. Although I’m not at liberty to report on who said what, I do want to share the question which framed our talk this evening: Why do people disagree? It’s a great question, and one which can frame many conversations across a range of topics.

True dialogue, which is not about debate or persuasion, but about understanding, gets at the heart of this. When you endeavor to dialogue with another, you work to peel away layers. To reveal values. To listen. To learn.

Sometimes you find that disagreements are based on different life experiences or values, language barriers or misunderstandings. In some cases, the disagreements might be quite minor and consensus close at hand. In the others, especially in the case of values, disagreement might be profound, with seemingly no resolution forthcoming.

As the eternal optimist, I believe that even in the case of divergent values, there is room for empathy and compassion. Across large institutions, governments, societies, groups can still find some common ground.

Our discussion was on An Agreement of the People. We spoke specifically about politics and civil law, power and property, but my mind was most interested in the idea of insider/outsider status.

How do we identify other insiders?
How do we treat outsiders and (how) can they come to be invited in?
What is the role of trust in the insider/outsider relationship?
If you extend trust to those on the outside, do you, in that very act, bring them inside?

Tomorrow is Session I: Human Nature. I had trouble with some of the readings because I disagreed with some of the fundamental arguments the authors presented. We don’t have to agree to contribute to the Great Conversation. And really, disagreement is what makes the Conversation worthy of having.

—
Read the next post in the Aspen Seminar series.