Watch >> this video << about a stand that American youth are taking. They're saying, "Sir! No Sir!" to the army recruiters. For what are they standing? Whether you support the war in Iraq or not, can you see what this group is standing for?

One of the things we tend to do in taking a stand that requires great courage is make the other side inhumane. We humiliate the other side and our stand becomes a position that keeps the other side from listening to what you have to say. What are your thoughts on this?

Part of the video is from the Sir No Sir documentary about the largely forgotten military personnel who organized against the Vietnam War. Bush and Clinton found ways to dodge the draft. My father entered dental school. Were these men cowards? What about those who went AWOL? Were their actions dishonorable? Or was there something for which they were standing that was very honorable?

And those who enlisted and fought–were they too not standing for something worthwhile? Whether you agree with the Iraq War and the Vietnam War… don’t you agree that it’s time we find new ways to communicate and resolve our differences at home and abroad? Watch the video(s), then leave your comments. Thanks!

Power To Stand: A Course In Greatness – many of you reading this have signed up to be beta-testers of this on-line course we’re creating here at VisionForce.com.  But as you may have noticed by now, it’s not really a course, per se.  It has no real beginning or ending.  There is no way to complete it.  There’s not even a way to tell where you are in the course!

The name, course, itself implies that it will take you from point A to point B. There are some problems we see in calling it a course.  Here are of the problems we see,

a) many people take a course, learn some new ideas and then move on–as if they really understand the concepts presented.  Courses you may have taken in school aim to teach you a set of ideas.  The course is generally considered complete when the student has learned the concepts, meaning he/she either 1) knows the concepts or 2) understands the concepts (or both).

1) we generally say we “know” a concept as soon as we are able to recall it from memory.  A friend starts telling you about somethiing you already read in a book, and you say, “Yeah, I know that.”  He stops explaining and you stop questioning.
2) we generally say we “understand” a concept as soon as we have gained a little familiarity with it.  A friend explains a new concept from a book, and we relate it to a similar concept we’ve already learned.  “I understand,” you say.  He stops explaining and you stop questioning

There is a grave error or blind spot in this approach, especially if our objective is to affect the student’s character, decision-making process or behavior.  If we’re learning math, science or history, that’s one thing.  If we’re learning concepts to change our behavior and habits in life, then maybe it would be helpful to have a new definition of what it is to “learn” something.

Just because you can recall a concept from memory and talk intelligently about it–or even use it in your everyday language–it does not mean you’ve integrated the concept into your mind in a way that affects your behavior.  The Power To Stand “course” is not intended to just put forward some interesting concepts.  No, the concepts themselves can change your life and change the world.

In a Positionary world, it’s enough to teach the “right” or “true” ideas and make the student follow and obey.  In a world of visionaries that approach is quite obviously backwards. What we’re up to here at VisionForce is building a world of visionaries, and creating the tools that make that world possible.

Soon, we’ll share more about the new way we are thinking about our on-line “courses.”

Comments?

In the recent interview of Bill Clinton by Fox News Sunday (watch video), he talks about the advantages and disadvantages of being an ex-president as he attempts to bring about positive change, and compares the power of an ex-president to that of a president. A president has the military might and political might to force change, whereas an ex-president does not. Former President Clinton and Former Vice President Gore have both been taking on projects to cause positive change in the world after leaving office. And, while I’ve seldom been inspired by any politician (as their primary strategies are typically positionary ones), I am often quite inspired by the paths taken by ex-presidents.

Gore, for example, may be doing more as an ex-politician to cause the kind of change he seeks with our relationship to the environment than he perhaps ever could have done as president. To add context to this comment, I’d mention these points:

1) a political victory is often short-lived as the opPosition usually becomes sufficiently inspired to fightback and undo what you’ve done.

2) while we can use political power to force others actions, we cannot force their minds and hearts

3) often forcing a person’s behavior can result in a myriad of rebellious actions which undermine the values of all involved.

I say it’s time to look at how much we turn to politics to make positive change happen in this world. What if we as civilians took much more of the time that we spend in building and defending our political positions, and instead built visions that called us into heroic action to be the change?

Visionaries such as entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs have over the last century solved all kinds of personal and social ills, not by forcing anyone but by creating a better alternative for people to freely choose.

How can we harness our own power to be the change and recreate our world? Comments most welcome!

When you watch the video of Fox News interviewing former President Bill Clinton, think about the prescious time we *all* waste as we operate from our positions.  Then please post your comments on this topic:
Think about all the time we waste attacking and defending, the time we waste preparing to defend and promote our positions, etc. This is a much, much bigger issue than the topic in the video. How much time do you and I spend in this positionary game?  (And please, no posting of your position about whether Clinton did enough or not to get Bin Laden, as that has nothing to do with our evolution from the Positionary Mind of the Past to the Visionary Mind of the Future, which is one of our primary focuses here at VisionForce.com.)

People take their seats. It’s good vs. evil, evil vs. good, or evil vs. evil–depending on your position. As with any good matchup, everyone has an opinion. That’s what it is so exciting about life, right? To be visible, to be seen, to be acknowledged–and so we take a position and express it. We may not do it with words, yet we do it. We wear the colors of the team we favor, or at least we sit in their section… if nothing else, we have our critique of the other side, our inner Charles Barkley… or of the game itself.

But for our experience to truly be fun, for most of us, it needs to be psychologically safe. So what we need from our position is a good enough reason to make it ok to sit on the sidelines… or if we are on the field, we need a reason to be ok with dirty tactics. And a colorful enough critique of the game, of our opponents or of any who dare play will do. If they are all evil or foolish enough in our eyes, we’re safe on the sidelines (or safe playing dirty) and the game will be fun to watch.

Hot dogs!! Get your hot dogs here!!

It’s Chavez vs. Bush for the future of the world! The crowd roars! Each fan shouting their opinions, judgments, complaints–from their safe and confortable positions. The Bush supporters shout this, the Chavez supporters shout that, other sides are cheering and shouting… there are “We’re number one” foam fingers every where… and quite a few middle fingers to boot.
For from a position, not only are we seen, we are safe–comfortable. No, not from the attacks of others. It’s never about what others think of us, ultimately. It’s what we think of ourselves. The trick is we must limit who we listen to, because our critics might have us face the painful reality about ourselves. And so, we take a seat on the sidelines of life, content to watch as our world falls apart.

Sounds a bit gloomy, but think about it. You have criticisms of the other side. No doubt you’ve concluded a few things about their character. And from your position of judgment, you expect them to step forward from their position and cause the change you recommend? While you sit safely behind your own judgments, not daring to expose your humanity or see that of the other? The funny thing is how we get all worked up, angry, animated, frustrated… and we think we are taking a stand as we berate the other side and argue against their position. Allthewhile they can’t hear us. They hear only our judgment, and are thus validated in their own judgments of us.

Popcorn anyone?

Who doesn’t understand the principle that you don’t negotiate with terrorists? By negotiating, you validate and encourage more terrorist action. That’s a pretty sound principle.

So, apparently George Bush is not negotiating with or even talking to the Iranian “regime,” or President Ahmadinejad, as the Iranians “sponsor terrorism” and are part of the “Axis of Evil.”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/19/bush.un/index.html

This is by no means a simple situation. There are many factors to take into consideration. However, the situation is a great example of why Positionary tactics no longer work in today’s world, and why it is time for some new ideas about how we interact with each other as human beings.
If ever there were a time to talk, would it not be *before* we enter into a crisis situation and were at war or on the brink of war? If ever there were a time to rebuild trust, open channels of communication and cooperate, would now not be the time?

Yes, Bush has stated his Position that he will not negotiate with terrorists (or those who sponsor them) and he will not hold talks with Iran until they have verifiably suspended their uranium enrichment program. He has dug himself into quite a corner in an attempt to impose his solution on Iran. Submit, follow and obey–or else.

I’ll come back to that in a minute. First, what is the greatest concern among the most violent opponents of the US in the middle east? Is it that they oppose Western culture? Is it that they fear America? Is it that they want to kill Americans or Christians simply because we are nonbelievers? Is it because they oppose US military presence or policies in the region?

Leaders on either side can explain the actions of the Bush administration’s declared enemies any way they want. But doesn’t it really come down to one thing? The greatest operational value of Positionaries worldwide. More important to all of us than freedom, peace, prosperity, security or anything else is one thing.

Pride. Or more specifically our image in others’ eyes. US policy in the Middle East humiliates its opponents. And they’ll die for their pride or their “honor.”

If this were so, would you expect Iran to halt it’s nuclear program in response to Bush’s threats? Iran backs down and they look like cowards. The fight and they maintain their pride.

Bush backs down and he looks like an indecisive coward…to his enemies and opponents AND to his supporters.
Now, am I suggesting that Bush is only enforcing his position, because he is prideful? No, and here’s the problem. There is a belief (with a lot of supporting evidence) that if Bush backs down, they other side will see it as a sign of weakness and attack more.

Good people use positionary tactics, because they see no other way. In fact, they often believe they’ve “tried” other approaches, and those approaches haven’t worked.

Alas, trying never works. Trying is usually a person’s attempt to prove that their original fears and judgments were right. “See, I tried. They are evil. I told you they’d react that way.” (We can see how well “trying” works in our marriages, once we’re convinced the our spouse just is a certain way.) Trying is what you do when you lack the vision or the moral courage to take a stand. Thus, trying is a Positionary tactic, just as intimidation and ultimatums generally are.

But it’s not as if we can blame the Positionary. From a position, there is no vision. Yet we all too often assume the other person can see what we see and just chooses not to act the way we believe is morally right. This, to us, proves they are just immoral, amoral or… “Evil.”

Really, if you oppose Bush, do you think he sees any other real alternative? Do you suppose he sees a peaceful alternative, but simply wants more power, control and has greedy, evil motives? If so, then you are just as positionary about him as he is about the “Evil” Iranians–or about your party, group or type.

On all sides are human beings. Human beings with children. Human beings with consciousness and conscience. Labelling the other side “Evil,” whether you place that label on Bush, Osama, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah or someone else is a sorry ass (excuse my French, but I think it’s appropriate) cop out, and an excuse to act without conscience.

What this world needs are people who are willing to risk even the esteem of their supporters and colleagues to stand for values that they hold to be more important than how they look in other’s eyes. People who are willing to stand for something greater, much like the stand that former Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat took when he broke ranks with all other Arab nations to sign a peace accord with Israel.

It was the belief of Arab Nations that the only way to deal with Israel, viewed as a rogue regime and a symbol of Imerialism, was through force and threat of force. Al-Sadat took a stand in the face of his fears and the judgments of others. There was something worth standing for.

This is the stand that as yet Bush, Ahmadinejad, and other leaders are unwilling to take.

I am quite sure that to the reader who is not very familiar with alternatives to Positionary tactics, the direction proposed here may seem half-baked or naive. A short blog post does not lend itself to presenting a “well-done” new alternative. Yet, such alternatives are being developed by visionaries all over the world. (VisionForce.com is currently building an on-line lab for all of us.)
Really, we cannot go back to the days when one group could rule the world by force. It’s a positionary mind that attempts to find The right or true group or idea (position), then get behind it and try to force the world to conform. Those who will survive, thrive and become mankind’s greatest benefactors will have visionary minds.

This seems like an appropriate time to plug Visionary Mind, a visionary’s trusty rusty compass in the world of the future.

Can you see how both Bush AND Ahmadinejad are standing for something? The problem is how our stands devolve to positions, and our positions then fail to inspire the change and honor the values we originally stood for.

Post your comments below.

Leave it to a lawyer! Oh my… I know that’s stereotypical. And to be fair, in principal, being a lawyer is one of the most noble professions there is. Yet, in our positionary world, many if not most lawyers, especially trial lawyers, simply waste their times creating and defending positions–at everyone’s expense.

Here’s the story of a lawyer, who, well-trained in the art of position-taking has sat in jail for 11 years to defend his position. Again, to be fair, this man may be telling the truth–that he has no power to access his money, but it is more plausible that he’s simply defending this position (his pseudo-pride).

I am sharing this not to attack or prejudge this man, but to offer yet another example of our positionary world. Supposing this man is playing his position game, what values are most important to him? Even if he holds his financial wealth as a higher value than his personal freedom, it’s quite arguable that being a free man for the last 11 years would have earned him more financial wealth than sitting in jail and hanging onto what he’s got.

We see this all the time in divorces, don’t we? A net destruction of values in order to preserve an illusion of being right or better than the other. We’d rather defeat our opponent, someone we’ve shared a lot of our lives and dreams with–and often even children, than do what’s in our best interest. Many times we’d rather die than give up our position.
Is it not time to evolve from positionary to visionary? Who’s ready to lead the way in their life? What’s worth standing for to give up your position?
Post your comments below.