Dialectic Thinking
No, I’m not trying to go “Socrates” on anyone. My weekly visit to the Zen Center has often stimulated reflection, and the lead for last week was on dialectic thinking. The root of what this means is that two (or more) opposite/opposing things can both be true. This mode of analysis will often attempt to synthesize opposing truths to create an integrated truth (another way to say this— COMPROMISE). Our political system used to run on it. This style of thinking does not work well for most religions, and in the current era, most political parties. For so many organizations, the end goal is simply to retain power at whatever cost, and the reasons or justifications for doing so become mere props.
But enough of that! The lead resonated because I’m wired to hold opposing truths at the same time. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with differing truths, but it does mean that I understand the perspectives that undergird the truths and from that I can assign a kind of value to it. For me, this is where it can get tricky. A lot of the truths that people hold these days are irritational (maybe that’s always been the case!). But it feels different than it used to. I judge that social media, the rage baiting, the click baiting and the sheer amount of free time people have, has fed on natural fears and anger and twisted such impulses into a cornucopia of neuroses. I do not feel under any obligation to hold or to validate someone else’s delusion. Religion does not fall in the category—faith is faith. It cannot be argued with or it’s truth fully understood. But a cult, built around a personality, is fair game. And I myself view religions as metaphors for deeper truths, and it’s up to each person to see and understand what they are willing and able.
The tension of opposing truths that came up for me during the lead was with my men’s group. About a year and half ago, we have a meeting of conscience. At the time, we had about 20 men listed as members and 17 showed up. I think everyone spoke. The issue was whether to close our group to new members, to adjust our membership guidelines in various ways but allow for new members, or to throw open the doors to anyone who wanted to join. Men advocated for various position, including the two truths most diametrically opposed— closed versus wide open.
I held the truth of both of these positions. A closed group would allow the men to deepen their connection; closed groups foster trust that requires time to build up; it strengthens accountability in terms of showing up (closed groups tend to have higher expectations about attendance); it allows for growth versus the pressure of adapting to everchanging open circles. But for a man looking for a circle to join, this can be a hard truth to bear. Open circles provide a space for any man willing to do their work; it challenges existing members with new perspectives and energies that change the dynamic; it’s about being of service to the greater community; we are often told no, or you are not wanted and open circles exist to counter that messaging.
Both perspectives have gold and both carry shadow.
I found that I could not exist in either of these truths. Not because they were not valid, but because I experienced both of the truths and the tension between them. I attempted to foster a consensus that satisfied the 2 men who held the banner for these positions (most of the men were in a spectrum in-between). We remained open but members retained the ability to reject new members (a single rejection was a no for the entire group). The fully closed and fully open men both left. At the time, I felt like I had failed. But this is the nature of dialectic thinking—it’s not a space comfortable for people who hold the kind of truths that don’t allow for compromise.
In practice, we have been an open group, and the “fully open” man has recently returned.
But our addition of many new members has again created a level of tension. Not because there is anything wrong with the new men, but because the nature of the container has been changing and there are structural limitations to the size of circles.
There are different thoughts on the matter. What I’ve read most often is that 8 is considered ideal. The recommended size for a men’s group is 6-12. I have been in many groups of 4, and these were some of the best circles because of the intimacy it fostered. Fewer men meant more vulnerability. Some of the limitations are practical. When we have larger groups, the check-ins are often brief; this is often the only time a man gets a chance to speak, other than the quick check out, and I feel it is a loss when it’s constrained. Many processes take more time with a larger group—workarounds may be needed. Multiple men may want to do work in front of the circle; at present, we are not in a space where a larger group could split to accommodate that need. And even if the group could split, it would then become 2 different groups as the heart of the circle would be in 2 different places. Every once in a while would not be disruptive, but as a regular occurrence it would split the energy of the group.
Larger groups inevitably shrink. Men stop showing up on a regular basis or leave all together. So saying yes to one man is indirectly saying no to another. But men who want to see themselves as inclusive get to hold on to their virtue signal. No one is saying a man can’t show up to a circle of 14, 15, or beyond, which allows for responsibility to be self-absolved.
The initial consensus of the group is that we don’t want to turn men away; there is gold here; there is shadow as well. I do think this is driven by a genuine desire to be of service, and it is culturally validated (and I’m wary of motivations driven in such ways).
But I align with this sentiment. I will say with me it is probably more shadow driven—I have been excluded a lot during my life, and I find it difficult to treat someone else that way. I see the shadow. I acknowledge it.
The dialectic thinking that has been expressed thus far is that we should close of the group and funnel men into a new group. We would mentor the group and provide support over the course of several months. We would rotate responsibility for mentoring, and if the new group was too small, we would merge together for such nights. In keeping with that, the new group would be at the same time and location until such time that it “left the nest”.
I like this idea. New men are not turned away. Men in my group will have opportunities for growth as they mentor the new group. Our existing circle will have time to absorb the many men who have recently joined.
Every time a man joins or leaves a circle, it changes. And the changed dynamic can form quickly (or not).
I appreciate that our circle has space for seeing different truths.
I’ll finish with this—after the last election, I commented with people I know how much I loved the men of my circle—there were men who voted for Kamala, and who voted for Trump (I voted for a 3rd party candidate as a protest), or didn’t vote, and I loved all of them. I appreciated that I got to be in spaces where I could connect with different men in ways that would have never happened in the outside world.
For those on the Left that I shared this with (outside the circle!), I was cancelled.
I have been struck by how intolerant the Left has become towards thinking that does not align with theirs.
It’s not that the Right is enlightened. However, no one on the Right batted an eye (perhaps because they won the election?). Not sure. But even before the election, when I would share views that were Left, Center, or Right (because I run everything through my internal value system before deciding where I fall, I do not fully align with any political thought), people on the Left were overwhelmingly much more intolerant.
By a landslide.
And typical coping mechanisms to cover this (because deep down they knew) were gaslighting and projection (most commonly, shame projection). Because I’ve got a sensitive nervous system, I am often hearing what’s not said more than the spoken word.
I voted for Biden the first time around, and I haven’t voted for a Republican in decades. But I’m now firmly non-aligned. Dialectic thinking isn’t just a preference for me—it’s how my mind is wired. The police-state evolution of the UK’s Left has pushed me further away as the US Democrats have tended to follow the UK Left’s lead—trailing one to two decades behind.
So the gift is that I’m free of needing to identity with the political parties. I can see their truths and their lies, their gold and shadows with a clarity that I lacked before.
I’m free at last, thank God All Mighty, I’m free at last!
