My objective in writing this article is to show how Cartesian philosophy influences our “control practices” and what possibilities open up for us as Ontological Coaches in our daily way of being and doing, by being able to observe and intervene in this phenomenon.
The production of this article is the result of the articulation of the material that I collected in my classes and Seminars during my training and other contributions that I take from different authors and interpretations.
In my personal experience, he “appropriated” the control distinction, opened many possibilities in my life, especially in the domain of being coherent with the values according to which I choose to live. I mean values like:
- respect and compassion for the other, that is, to see the other as a legitimate other, respecting their way of observing the world, humility, understanding that I see the world as I see it, given the observer that I am
I also rescue that when I am really alert to observe the moments when I am trying to control others in certain situations, what I experience is a state of "lightness and acceptance", which allows me to connect with my true power and exercise my responsibility as an ability to answer, to choose who to be in each situation.
I believe that as Ontological Coaches, if we choose to live this interpretation at all times and develop the "practices and alerts" that allow us to realize "when the cultural drift catches us and we intend to control", we can more effectively serve others from our profession, and we will be happier.
I want to clarify that I do not think that "pretending to control" is bad or good. What we can ask ourselves is whether it serves us or not, given who we want to be and the way we want to live and create our relationships with others and with life events.
For this I also consider it useful to introduce the distinctions I invented to differentiate two types of control: "existential control" and "operational control". I share with the reader an example of each type of control, so that he can draw his own conclusions.
Existential Control
I say that I am "existentially controlling the other" when at my request he says NO and I do not accept it and I get angry, and I make a whole series of gadgets to do what I want.
Operational Control
I develop an operational control for example, when the bank statement arrives and I control the debited checks, the deposits and the taxes / expenses that they charged me.
Can the reader see any difference between the two?
I remember a phrase that Jim Selman, one of my teachers in this profession, shared in a Seminar when I was training as a Coach. I invite you to copy and paste it in a very visible place.
To end this introduction, I would also like to share with you something that I always say to my Coachees (and myself):
Human beings have no control over the results, but we can choose who to be in front of the results we have.
This phrase summarizes for me what it is to live a life from the power and responsibility that freedom gives us.
- Cartesian paradigm: what makes us think we can control ?. How Cartesian philosophy influences our existential control practices.
I consider that the “control” distinction within the Ontological Coaching paradigm is a meta distinction (*), which underlies or is below all other distinctions, and which is essential to observe and work, since it reveals our “Cartesian being ”In the world and offers us the challenge of observing ourselves and choosing from responsibility for which paradigm we want to be used.
The interpretation that we can control is historically formed in the Cartesian notion that we are independent actors, separated from the world, from nature and from other human beings and that we can intentionally cause our actions and produce results, that is, that we are individually the source of our actions.
Rafael Echeverría in his book “El Búho de Minerva” (1) points out in relation to the philosophy of René Descartes:
Without a doubt, this philosophy had a great influence on the scientific and technological development that we enjoy today (?). In western research methodology, knowledge is obtained through isolated, disinterested and objective observation. Cartesian logic, which visualizes the universe not as a living entity but as a machine, postulates a total and absolute separation between observer and observed, between soul and body, and between mind and matter. Observation is limited to what can be quantified. (2)
This split between man and nature led us to believe that from science man can control the world and tame it for its ends. I do not want to enter this article to develop the consequences that this way of thinking causes in our ecology and in the life of our planet. I do consider it useful to mention it to show where this paradigm arises and what are the consequences of it, when what we want is no longer to control nature, but to control other human beings.
A graphic way of showing this mechanism, which we commonly call "the box", "EGO", "culture" (in the social sphere) or the "Cartesian structure of being" would be:
FUTURE / POSSIBILITY / COMMITMENT / Extraordinary results
Descartes said: "Cogito, ergo sum", I THINK, THEN I AM. This implies that I am my EGO (*).
My EGO believes that he is ME, believes that he produces the results, my EGO believes that his judgments are the truth. My EGO is a self-referential conversation, where reality is interpreted with a single purpose that is to validate his own point of view, so if I am my EGO, I can achieve what he wants me to achieve, but nothing more, because it is a closed system (only what is possible inside the “box”, what the culture accepts as reasonable). This is what a self-referential conversation does, it self-justifies, it self-organizes, it interprets everything related to itself, with the sole purpose of surviving and persisting.
In this paradigm we are "stimulus-response" machines where we change the action based on the judgments on the results, thinking that what we think is the truth and that there is no other possibility.
We think we think and we think that it is our thinking that determines what we do and how we feel. We are used for this interpretation. Most of the answers do not belong to us, but we are so arrogant that we believe we are in control.
There is a well-known story that shows this interpretation:
Two friends meet for dinner and the housewife decides to cook a fish. They go to the kitchen, the hostess takes the fish from the fridge and before putting it in the saucepan, cuts off the tips. Her friend, surprised, asks her:
- Why do you cut off the ends of the goldfish? Because the goldfish is made like this! Who said so?
The housewife is surprised and reflecting for a few minutes she decides to call her mother, who taught her this recipe.
- Hi mom !. How are you?. Look, I'm here with Silvia and she asks me a question that I really answered, but I'm not sure why I answer what I answer. Let's see if you can help me.. Why do you cut the ends of the goldfish? Daughter, it's obvious, because it's done like this.
They cut the conversation and the restlessness was transferred from generation to generation. The mom of the housewife in this story decides to call her mom.
- Hi mom !. How are you?. Look, I just finished cutting with Liliana and she asked me a question that left me thinking.. Can you tell me why you cut the tips of the goldfish? Daughter, I cut the tips of the goldfish, because when your dad and I We got married, we only had a little saucepan and since the little fish they sold me didn't fit, I cut off the tips and used them to make meatballs.
When we "think" that something is wrong or want what we think should happen to happen, when something happens or someone does something that does not match our expectations, then what we do is try to control that person or situation, to make them The actions of the other or what happens fits what is correct or should be for us. From the control paradigm, everything that is not according to my expectations is a source of suffering.
This brings us to a point where the more we do to get what we say we want, the less we get from it. What we want to control, controls us.
I take an example given by Paul Watzlawick in his book "Change, Training and solution of human problems" (3), which observed from the perspective of Ontological Coaching, exemplifies this phenomenon very well:
Professor Luis Cibanal in his article "INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEMS AND FAMILY THERAPY" (4), outlines the previous situation as follows:
Husband woman
_______________________________________________
I RETREAT I SHOUT YOU
Because, why
You scold me you are delayed
As Maturana (a) says, an explanation (a reason) is a reformulation of our experience that satisfies an acceptance criterion, it is a judgment after the event and if it is an accepted explanation, it not only justifies the action that has already taken place but also The next. My opinion is that this is not action is reaction, what we do is a reaction to what we think and feel.
We are the type of being that thinks that the action has to do with the production of results and then we value the action observing the usefulness of the effect. In this structure there is no Being, everything is reaction.
The control paradigm blinds us to the domain of "BEING" and traps us in a "never stop reacting" that at most can gratify us but never satisfy us.
Furthermore, since we are all in this same condition, control practices are inevitably resisted by others and so we develop all possible ways of games to control each other. In the end no one gets what they want and the BE and DO distinctions collapse.
Since we were thrown into this control paradigm, we have no choice if we come from the belief that "action" refers to producing desired effects.
Martín Heidegger develops the theme of thinking, action (acting) and being, in his "Letter on Humanism" (5) (b):
Jim Selman expresses this in a very simple way:
Control is always a reaction to something historical, which is already in the world.
To achieve or to do something is to bring something new that cannot happen except through creativity and commitment.
Commitment is the human capacity to act, not to react.
When we incorporate this into our life across domains, our control practices (operational control) become a means of meeting our commitments rather than the context that controls us.
To achieve something is to manifest what already is, which is already by the fact of having declared it.
For example, I can declare a commitment:
"I am my commitment to integrity, I think, say and do on the same line."
This for me is already an achievement. An achievement, as a linguistic act, is a declaration, and as any declaration implies that my actions will be consistent with what I declared.
A result, as a linguistic act, is an affirmation or observation.
Once my statement is made, things will happen that will not be under my control. If I adapt to the circumstances and change what I say, what I think and what I do given the circumstances, when I face those things that happen, I am reacting and wanting to control what happens. I am not displaying my BEING, but my EGO (what I think) is taking power. I am not being my statement, I am thinking about what is happening and evaluating what is convenient for me. I'm going into a game called "more of the same" or "why take a chance if that's fine enough." I am moving again in the BOX space, not in the space of what is POSSIBLE (*) (outside the BOX), just because I have declared it.
With the above I am not saying that it is not logical or acceptable, that in the way of carrying out actions to be consistent with my statement, include the possibility of evaluating the results and correcting my actions. Surely the extract that I include after the book “SYNCHRONICITY” by Joseph Jaworski (6), clarifies this idea more.
One of the basic competencies of an Ontological Coach is empowering your Coachee to achieve more than he thinks would be possible, more than common sense says. This involves working to "let go of control."
Working a vision, not as an image of the future where you want to get, but as a context to display a way of being, that aligns all our actions, is a great resource to implement in our work as Coaches.
We all have examples in our lives of having lived experiences (even without having ontological distinctions) in which we produced results that had nothing to do with the possible, given the commitment we had to our vision. I will give a personal example, to see if I can clarify a little more what I want to convey.
In one of the companies where I worked in a dependency relationship, I held the position of Supervisor of the Promotions Department. Together with a colleague who had the same position in Mexico, in an event in which we worked together in Orlando, USA, we promised to see each other again next time, being both named Managers. At that time it did not occur to me to think that this was not possible, taking into account that I had no intention of "sawing the floor of my boss", that there was no conversation that implied that my boss was going to be changed sector or dismiss or that the organization chart contemplated the possibility of appointing a Manager who depended on another Manager. At that time the structure included Supervisors reporting to Managers, and Managers reporting to the CEO.I do not remember having done all this analysis at that time, I do it now in order to exemplify how this phenomenon of "being" what I want to be, regardless of the status quo, worked for me. I was a Manager before being appointed, my way of acting, my way of relating to work, my way of relating to other people, corresponded to what was expected of a Manager. Obviously my Mexican friend did the same, given that the next time we met (which was in less than a year) we had both been appointed Managers. In my case, the organization chart of the company was changed and I was the first Manager to report to another Manager.I was a Manager before being appointed, my way of acting, my way of relating to work, my way of relating to other people, corresponded to what was expected of a Manager. Obviously my Mexican friend did the same, given that the next time we met (which was in less than a year) we had both been appointed Managers. In my case, the organization chart of the company was changed and I was the first Manager to report to another Manager.I was a Manager before being appointed, my way of acting, my way of relating to work, my way of relating to other people, corresponded to what was expected of a Manager. Obviously my Mexican friend did the same, given that the next time we met (which was in less than a year) we had both been appointed Managers. In my case, the organization chart of the company was changed and I was the first Manager to report to another Manager.The organization chart of the company was changed and I was the first Manager to report to another Manager.The organization chart of the company was changed and I was the first Manager to report to another Manager.
When we dare to be what we want to be based on our commitments and we do not react to our judgments, when we deploy all our power and act independently of the results we are obtaining or what the culture says is logical, when we run of the reaction mechanism and we are not measuring what happens, to determine what our next step will be, the inevitable happens. And actually, given what we have been working on, I correct myself and say: It doesn't happen, it already happened. I think this is what Heidegger is referring to when he says: “To carry out means to unfold something in the fullness of its essence, to guide towards it, I will produce. So in reality you can only carry out what you already are. Now, what "is" above all is being. "
- How to be / do to get out of the control paradigm ?. Acceptance and Surrender What does accepting mean? What does giving up mean?
One of the ways of intervening in our daily life, to get out of cultural drift and be used by this interpretation proposed by ontological design is to consider the question:
Who I am? ç equal to è What am I committed to ?.
The possibility of creating a different way of being, being my commitments, allows me to distinguish the culture to which I belong and that has me and, enables me to become responsible for what is using me and choose why interpretation I want to be used. Always, always we are going to be used for an interpretation, the invitation is for us to choose the one that in our judgment gives us more power, as a capacity for action.
To get out of the control paradigm, we also have the possibility of incorporating into our lives the habit of practicing ACCEPTANCE AND SURRENDER. In this way we can dissolve the collapse between BEING and DOING.
What does accepting mean? What does giving up mean?
To accept implies to stop resisting. So how do we realize that we are resisting?
Human beings live making judgments, about ourselves, about others and about things that happen. When we do not live judgments as judgments, but as the truth, we develop two types of mechanisms:
- if the judgment is positive, we accept it, it comforts us. What we think, what we feel and what we experience in our body is a gratifying sensation. If the judgment is negative, we resist it, we don't like it. We get angry, we defend ourselves and we could say that the judgment "hits us in the body."
Now, if we share that the judgments are not the truth… what is there to resist ?, what is there to defend ?.
There is nothing to defend or resist if we choose to live our life from a constructivist position.
In their book "The construction of the universe", Marcelo Ceberio and Paul Watzlawick (7), point out:
- The respect for our own opinions, respecting the opinions of others.
- It suggests a notion of greater commitment, when assuming our own constructions, but not as absolute truths, but as heritage to see things from our point of view of observation.
- Furthermore, in this way we become understanding beings , understanding that others have other conceptual structures and that they perceive, feel, experience in a different way. And also, all this provokes a notion of greater freedom, making our personal parameters more flexible, understanding the other, respecting their constructions and committing ourselves to them. ”
Accepting implies:
- accept that my judgments and the judgments of others, are only judgments accept what I want to change, include it, not deny it or resist it accept my Box / Ego, my self-referential conversations as a mechanism that at times makes me think that I am that Box, but that I am more than that and what I am as a possibility, includes the Box. This implies taking responsibility for this way of being that has us and choosing whether we want to be used by it or by another interpretation.
An excellent metaphor that for me shows the possibility of living with the Box and not resisting it, is given in the movie "A brilliant mind". This movie features an intensely human drama, which is inspired by the real life of mathematical genius John Forbes Nash, Jr. Nash made an incredible discovery when he was young and nearly reached international fame. But, his rapid rise in the intellectual stratosphere changed direction when his brilliant intuition was obscured by his schizophrenia.
He went through several hospitalizations in neuro-psychiatric, until he finally returned to his "normal" life (?), But the hallucinations had not disappeared. He decided to live with them and not resist them, and develop practices, with the help of friends and students, to detect those situations in which he had doubts if he was hallucinating or what he saw was real. This is marvelously seen when a teacher he did not know comes to meet him at the end of his class and begins to speak to him. John calls one of his students and asks in front of the visitor: "Do you see this man?" Yes, I see him. Then Nash begins to interact with him calmly, sure that it was not a hallucination.
By accepting, I can give up. I no longer have to force myself or fight to defend a way of being that prevents me from creating what I want. Surrendering is letting go of control.
From the surrender that comes from the acceptance of what is being, I can generate the commitment to create what I want for myself and for others. This is possible from a state of serene ambition. If I surrender from resignation, any action I believe is a re-action. It is not an action. It is not something I choose to make something happen. It is an action that I create to correct or change what happens.
An EGO belief is that we have a choice, that we can control things and people, and that if we give up we lose control. Actually, when we are standing on this interpretation, what we think we are controlling is controlling us.
What is power? Does control nullify power?
If we take the definition of power that the Encarta Encyclopedia offers us, it is inevitable to observe in it the great influence exerted by Cartesian thought.
Rafael Echeverría (8) points out: “Our traditional conception of power treats power as a substance, as a 'something' that is there, regardless of the individuals that observe it. It seems to be a mysterious 'something', of great elusive capacity, that at times seems to have it, to soon discover that it got out of hand. It gives the impression that power was something that individuals 'access'. It is not strange, therefore, to hear expressions that refer to the 'taking' or the 'conquest' of power, as if it were there, subject to being seized. ”
From this perspective, power becomes a “scarce and limited good”, to which some human beings have access and others do not, since there is not for everyone. Power has also been reified.
From the perspective of Ontological Coaching we consider power as a linguistic distinction, as a phenomenon that is only possible given the capacity of language that we human beings have.
From an ontological point of view , power is a judgment that an observer makes about the capacity of action that an entity has, call it an individual, a group of individuals, an organization, a machine, etc.
Since it is a judgment, considering power as "capacity for action" is as valid as considering it as "domain, empire, faculty and jurisdiction that the individual has to command or execute; ability to impose your own will on others. I consider that since these definitions of power come from different paradigms of how to see reality, they carry an underlying question of values that makes a very big difference between the two perspectives, especially if we consider power as the ability to impose one's own will. over the others.
In this article, I would like to analyze the phenomenon of power in relation to each one of us and not to power over others.
If we share that power can be observed as a phenomenon in the capacity of action that an individual has and we take the diagram (page 3) that we use to graph the Cartesian structure of being (the Box): where does an individual have more power, inside the box or outside the box ?.
If within the Fund we have what culture accepts as possible, what has already been given, what common sense says is feasible, it is evident that the greatest capacity for action and creation is outside the Fund. It does not mean that there is no capacity for action in the Fund, but rather that it is limited by what we can see. Let us remember that we can only intervene in a world that we can distinguish, therefore, the more distinctions we have, the more capacity for action we can develop.
We can see this scheme also this way:
- Inside the box is everything "I KNOW I KNOW" and what "I KNOW I DON'T KNOW". This is a space where we can "discover". Outside the box is what "I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW", that is, everything I can invent or create.
Let's see this through an example:
There is an oriental story that tells that a father, after his death, left his 17 camels to his three children, with the following instruction: the eldest son should receive half, the second, a third, and the youngest a ninth. of the camels. Faced with the father's mandate, they find it impossible to make such a division.
Eventually on the way, a mullah (interpreter of the laws and dogmas of Islam) comes riding on his camel, and they ask him for help. "There is no solution to this," he asserts. But I can add my camel to yours, and so you will have 18 and you can divide them. Now you, the eldest, receive half, which is 9. To you, the second son, one third corresponds to you, that is 6, here they are. And for you, the youngest, a ninth, which is 2 camels; so subtracts a camel from my property.
The acontabilidad is not a way of being, it is a distinction of organizational design, it is an operational distinction. The accountant is the one that accounts for a task being performed.
An example of these two distinctions working at the same time would be:
Alberto and Néstor declared themselves responsible for the project of their cake-making company to work. Néstor is an accountant for the administration and Alberto is an accountant for sales. If sales do not reach the level that both established, Néstor, since he declared himself responsible for the results, will not blame Alberto for not achieving the result, but will have conversations with him to see what they can design together to achieve its objectives, although Alberto continues to be countable due to sales.
Bibliography consulted
- Jim Selman's Seminars Notes - ICPE Encarta Encyclopedia in Spanish - Version 1999 “EL BÚHO DE MINERVA” Rafael Echeverría. Granica Publishing House. Edition 1997. Article "ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE: BEYOND THE CARTESIAN PARADIGM" Carmelo Ruiz Marrero - August 2001 http://www.palacio.org/Hablamos/00000043.htm "CHANGE" Training and solution of human problems. Paul Watzlawick, John H. Weakland and Richard Fisch - Herder Publishing House - Library of Psychology - University Texts - 1995 Edition Article “INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEMS AND FAMILY THERAPY” Professor Luis Cibanal. http://perso.wanadoo.es/aniorte_nic/apunt_terap_famil_1.htm "LETTER ON HUMANISM" Martin Heidegger -Translation by Helena Cortés and Arturo Leyte, published by Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2000 http://personales.ciudad.com. ar / M_Heidegger / carta_humanismo.htm "SYNCHRONICITY" The inner path to leadership Joseph Jaworski, Editorial Piados Plural - 1999 Edition "THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNIVERSE" Marcelo Ceberio and Paul Watzlawick. Editorial Herder - 1998 Edition "ONTOLOGY OF LANGUAGE" Rafael Echeverría. Granica Publishing House. 1997 Edition. "THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE" Stephen Covey. Editorial Piados Empresas - 1996 Edition
(*) We cannot observe something for which we do not have a distinction. The distinctions of the Ontology of Language can be articulated in another way depending on whether we use them in a paradigm of control or in a paradigm of respect and acceptance, hence, consider the distinction "control" as a meta-distinction, since for me it includes all the others.
(*) I use the distinction “Ego” for the purposes of the article as a synonym for “culture” or “self-referential conversation”.
(a) "OBJECTIVITY, AN ARGUMENT TO OBLIGATE", Humberto Maturana, Editorial Domen.1997
(b) What is included about "Letters on Humanism" are excerpts that I chose based on the theme developed in this article. If the reader wants to read the full text, refer to the Bibliography consulted.
(*) Possible, within what my biological structure allows me and within the domain of facticity.
(*) Excerpted from the book “THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNIVERSE” Marcelo Ceberio and Paul Watzlawick. Herder Publishing House - 1998 Edition - page 26
(*) Extracted from the “BOOK OF ATTITUDES” Editorial Errepar- 1994 Edition - Page 37
Download the original file
