Finding the 'Child Perspective'
-
A political example just came to mind from late in the last century. It was Bill Clinton's position on abortion laws.
The heavily polarized view, of course, was that one side took a stand for women's right to control their own bodies, and the other side took a stance that abortions were immoral.
Clinton took the position that, their disagreements aside, both groups shared common ground: nobody wanted there to be more abortions! He called on both sides to join, therefore, in the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies.
This isn't a compromise. It isn't an "averaging." It's the fruit of taking the issue more within, rather than dealing with the manifest positions without. He didn't try to rearrange the pieces of the argument out on the table; instead, he took it deeper, backtracking along the perspectives until he found common ground which let each opposing position remain intact yet served both of them pretty well.
Come to think of it, this has always been part of Clinton's genius: The ability to intuit the common ground that lays under division factionalism. (Obviously he didn't always pull it off, but he was better at it than just about anybody.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Most people find a tension or opposition between these two, and they pick one or the other. But to recognize both, and simultaneously come from both, is to emerge as the child of both.
"This is good but it leaves us without the requested political perspective.
When I read Crowley I see what would obviously be a Libertarian in today's USA political scene. Under a "do what though wilt" rubric the smallest possible government would be the ideal. Individual freedom is maximized and the inevitable communal effort on the part of the more advanced is purely voluntary. I think it would be helpful to stop thinking in terms of a Utopian Society and focus more on an Optimum society.
Optimize what, you ask?
Spiritual Growth, of course!
But given that most Souls lose interest in anything along those lines as soon as they realize it requires effort, we would be left with a multitude of less than optimum scenarios, grouped according to the collective level of consciousness that makes up a community. But for the Ones afforded optimum growth opportunity the reward is priceless... for the individual and the for entire community.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Most people find a tension or opposition between these two, and they pick one or the other. But to recognize both, and simultaneously come from both, is to emerge as the child of both.
"This is good but it leaves us without the requested political perspective."
Or it IS the political perspective. (Think about it: Politics need not be about positions. It can be about method.)
"When I read Crowley I see what would obviously be a Libertarian in today's USA political scene. Under a "do what though wilt" rubric the smallest possible government would be the ideal. Individual freedom is maximized and the inevitable communal effort on the part of the more advanced is purely voluntary. I think it would be helpful to stop thinking in terms of a Utopian Society and focus more on an Optimum society. "
I don't think we should confuse Crowley's personal politics with what a Thelemic political perspective would be. They were his own particular mix as a citizen. For example, he was a rabid British patriot - which is a specific position that nobody (probably) would expect to be a "standard Thelemic position." He was fiercely anti-abortion (because, I believe, of the social conditions of the time: it was, at least partly, his way of attacking the stigma on unwed mothers). And so on.
But these are specific political stances. I don't think those are what we need for our definitions. Real freedom is in process, not particulars. And, in particular, we need much more active (and activist) participation. Real democracy requires somewhere around 93% participation
instead of the, say, 25% participation that has become routine. -
Regarding participation levels in democracy: I notice that it seems to go hand-in-hand with the fact that people seem increasingly dissatisfied with the job American politicians are doing.
When you consider the representative model of America, with its checks and balances, it seems that it has 3 purposes: (1) to slow down radical change (2) to protect the numerical minority from potential oppression by the majority and (3) for practicality reasons, since communication was more difficult at the time, it allowed people to have lower direct participation.
Purpose 3 is no longer relevant. Most of us can follow the minute-by-minute procedures of congress if we're so inclined. And, since as a culture we strive for instant results, Purpose 1 is all the more frustrating. I used to believe that the lack of participation was because people were just dumb and apathetic. I now believe that the sentence has the causation switched. It's because they see little chance at making a difference.
And I think the current model has turned into a spectator sport. We watch the politicians fight, we root for a team, and we know that there is often very slim chance for a meaningful victory for either side, so we scream harder.
The natural inclination seems to be the "big sort": we divide our entire lifestyles, including where we live, along socio-political lines. You move to a liberal place if you're liberal, and live a liberal lifestyle, and the same thing if you're conservative. But that isn't the child perspective, and that ignores that we have problems to solve that are bigger that our communities.
It would be interesting to have a method where we passed legislation that only focused on the goals that the most diametrically opposed viewpoints agreed on.
In general, though, both sides of the political spectrum in the US are very right. We must act collectively to solve our big problems, and we must be careful to protect individuality.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"(Think about it: Politics need not be about positions. It can be about method.)"
While I agree that method is much more important than position in the long run, when entering the voting booth it is mostly about position.
@Jim Eshelman said
"For example, he was a rabid British patriot - which is a specific position that nobody (probably) would expect to be a "standard Thelemic position." He was fiercely anti-abortion (because, I believe, of the social conditions of the time: it was, at least partly, his way of attacking the stigma on unwed mothers)."
He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance.
The guilt-ridden self loathing so common among the Left is a reflection of Spiritual ignorance.
@Jim Eshelman said
"But these are specific political stances. I don't think those are what we need for our definitions. Real freedom is in process, not particulars. "
I think they are exactly what is needed. Particulars can serve as the rungs on the process ladder.
@Jim Eshelman said
"And, in particular, we need much more active (and activist) participation. Real democracy requires somewhere around 93% participation
instead of the, say, 25% participation that has become routine."Not really. It is a good thing that the lazy element in society is too lazy to go to the polls. Our Founding Fathers, in their brilliance saw the inherent weakness in "Democracy" and thus gave us a Republic. What if 51% of the population is a bunch of demon possessed loons? Democracy would be a disaster. The tyranny of the masses was exactly what they were trying to avoid.
I read this quote from a Greek philosopher written shortly after the collapse of Athen's economy (I have seen it attributed recently to a Scotsman);
"Any Democracy is doomed as soon as the citizens discover that they can vote themselves benefits from the public coffers".
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"(Think about it: Politics need not be about positions. It can be about method.)"While I agree that method is much more important than position in the long run, when entering the voting booth it is mostly about position. "
Not always, and not necessarily. The second biggest reason most people voted for Obama at the time was a belief that he would alter the process. (I'm speaking of the motivations people actually say they used on that occasion.) Personally, I routinely include in my equation (the factors I juggle) the bigger question of how they will make decisions, rather than what decisions I think they'll make.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"For example, he was a rabid British patriot - which is a specific position that nobody (probably) would expect to be a "standard Thelemic position." He was fiercely anti-abortion (because, I believe, of the social conditions of the time: it was, at least partly, his way of attacking the stigma on unwed mothers)."He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance."
I decline to try to second guess his thinking; and I think it an error to confuse the execution of our rights as citizens with our positions as initiates.
"The guilt-ridden self loathing so common among the Left is a reflection of Spiritual ignorance."
Not sure where you're getting that. Sounds like propaganda to me. I know very few people actively working on the left who have guilt-ridden self-loathing.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"But these are specific political stances. I don't think those are what we need for our definitions. Real freedom is in process, not particulars. "I think they are exactly what is needed. Particulars can serve as the rungs on the process ladder."
<sigh> Understood. Your pov. (But I'll now be dropping out from discussing this with you because I think that's the entirely wrong path and likely to lead to exactly the kind of problem we see today. Same song, different verse.)
-
93
@PatchworkSerpen said
"Can anyone think of a good example?"
The mathematician John Nash revised Adam Smith (aka the father of modern economics) and arrived at some interesting conclusions that one could refer to as a child like synthesis.
Smith argued that the best results are achieved when everyone in a group pursues their own interests individually. Nash revised the theory by adding the consideration that the common interests of the group in its entirety, combined with the individual pursuit would be the most ideal approach.
Nash was continually proven in practice and recieved the Nobel prize for his discovery.
-
"He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance."
Sheesh, man. At least admit that you really want to be challenged to express your defense of statements like that. Otherwise, you are simply embodying "Because and his kin" (Liber Legis). That's where I continually find myself drawing a line between you and me, and I imagine, though I cannot say for certain, that it stings the nose of more than just my vocal self.
My vision for Thelema's influence on politics though...? Be the most hard-c**ked producer of environmentally safe and friendly technologies and products. That's where the future success lies in more way than one. That's where the cheese has moved. The factories should be housed in-country and the jobs go to citizens. Take all that greedy desire and point it (by law or reward or both) in the direction of the future of humanity itself instead of allowing unprincipled men to parasitically feed off of the wealth and resources of their own nation to its demise. That seems to me to be what Life and Survival would reward.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Not always, and not necessarily. The second biggest reason most people voted for Obama at the time was a belief that he would alter the process. (I'm speaking of the motivations people actually say they used on that occasion.) Personally, I routinely include in my equation (the factors I juggle) the bigger question of how they will make decisions, rather than what decisions I think they'll make. "
Well, of course "Not always, and not necessarily" applies to a lot of things and situations, so I agree there. But when it comes to voting for politicians I look at a pattern of past behavior and decision making processes as well as final decisions and voting commitments for the future. I think voting primarily on process is highly unreliable and very risky. Obama is a good example. The guy came outta nowhere so he could say whatever people wanted to hear and given the pass he got from the major networks, he got away with it.
(re: my comment: He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance.)
@Jim Eshelman said
"I decline to try to second guess his thinking; and I think it an error to confuse the execution of our rights as citizens with our positions as initiates."
The real error is in confusing my comment with "the execution of our rights as citizens with our positions as initiates". I said nothing about the execution of rights. Not even close.
(re: my comment; The guilt-ridden self loathing so common among the Left is a reflection of Spiritual ignorance.)
@Jim Eshelman said
"Not sure where you're getting that. Sounds like propaganda to me. I know very few people actively working on the left who have guilt-ridden self-loathing."
I know lots of 'em. Here's what I am getting at. The following sorts of things have them wallowing in guilt-ridden self-loathing;
- dropping atomic bombs on the legitimate military targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and saving the countless lives it did somehow has got many lefties with their panties in a bunch.
- Pouring a little water up the nose of three (count 'em... three, 3) terrorists who were planning to kill thousands of innocent Americans had some Lefties so nauseous they actually vomited and could not sleep.
- The most technologically advanced nation in the world uses more resources. (!? - duh, so what?)
- invading a country and deposing a horrendous despot who openly and undeniably supported terrorism really has them in kanipshin fits.
- Even though the USA was the ONLY industrialized nation in the world to actually reduce its rate of carbon output in recent years they still have to whine about carbon footprints on their cell phones as they drive to work and to McDonalds and their favorite nightclubs.... Its so ridiculously hypocritical.
There's more where that came from but I think that for those sincerely interested in understanding where I am coming from on this, that's plenty.
-
@Frater LA said
"Sheesh, man. At least admit that you really want to be challenged to express your defense of statements like that. Otherwise, you are simply embodying "Because and his kin" (Liber Legis). That's where I continually find myself drawing a line between you and me, and I imagine, though I cannot say for certain, that it stings the nose of more than just my vocal self. "
"Stings the nose"? I will admit this much. It never ceases to amaze me how Liberal the general occult and new age communities are. Especially the more La-La feelgood astrology and Madame Zorba palm reader types.
"He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance".
From what I have read here, it looks like some psychologically challenging periods lay ahead for serious seekers but they emerge stable and healthy on the other side. Ipso facto, a positive self image. Which would naturally extend to one's mother country to a certain extent.
-
Labyrinthus, 93,
You wrote:
"It never ceases to amaze me how Liberal the general occult and new age communities are. "
When people start mud-slinging about liberal or conservative attitudes, I always recall my favorite quote from Leonard Cohen:
"I feel we're in a very shabby moment, and neither the literary nor the musical experience has its finger on the pulse of our crisis. We're in the midst of a Flood; and this Flood is of such enormous and Biblical proportions that I see everyone holding on in their individual way to an orange crate, to a piece of wood, and we're passing each other in this swollen river that has pretty well taken down all the landmarks, and overturned everything. And people insist, under these circumstances, on describing themselves as liberal or conservative. It seems to me completely mad."
Now, I'm less concerned than him about this Flood. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with his opinion, which he gave in the late 1990s.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"<sigh> Understood. Your pov. (But I'll now be dropping out from discussing this with you because I think that's the entirely wrong path and likely to lead to exactly the kind of problem we see today. Same song, different verse.)"
I assume you imply he is coming from a Hadit perspective.
"When people start mud-slinging about liberal or conservative attitudes, I always recall my favorite quote from Leonard Cohen:
I feel we're in a very shabby moment, and neither the literary nor the musical experience has its finger on the pulse of our crisis. We're in the midst of a Flood; and this Flood is of such enormous and Biblical proportions that I see everyone holding on in their individual way to an orange crate, to a piece of wood, and we're passing each other in this swollen river that has pretty well taken down all the landmarks, and overturned everything. And people insist, under these circumstances, on describing themselves as liberal or conservative. It seems to me completely mad."This seems to be somewhat the perspective of a victim, someone whom things "happen to" as opposed to someone who 'makes things happen"!! why cant one take control of ones own destiny??
I think the conservative attitude in the context of initiation tends towards "self initiation"
"Ipso facto, a positive self image. Which would naturally extend to one's mother country to a certain extent."
Whereas the liberal attitude tends toward impaction
" Impaction is the phenomenon when the mind and energy of a being with higher spiritual development impacts, and sets off development or capacities, in the mind and energy of a being with lesser spiritual development. It's kinda like a contract high of spiritual force. Consider a tuning fork and its ability to set strings vibrating if they are nearby and tuned to the same note. So what I was saying is that a significant part of the traditional way of training for this is to have someone further along, who has this ability well developed and has opened to higher spiritual frequencies, walk you through it and, my right concentrated attention (usually, in this case, combined with instruction) trigger or ignite you into being able to do it."
in the form of group initiations.The Child perspective could then very well be impaction at a distance; Larger and more diverse virtual groups such as this. which could provide for both a more complete collective and greater individual freedom, its like saying that there is no initiation ultimately but self-intiation but this cant happen without the help of others..ironically I think this pretty much describes my stance at this point. The Liberal viewpoints expressed here predominantly seem to be some type of "victim consciousness" and that being the case I would prefer to err in the way of self-assertion, so I guess that would make me appear somewhat conservative, which I only realized recently. I suppose then it stands to reason that less self assertive people would need more protection and hence preparations so it all does seem to balance out in the end.
"One clue is what was already mentioned in the other thread: The child perspective is one of union of two seemingly opposing points of view that otherwise seem to have a tension or conflict or contradiction in them. One place you should be able to find a lot of examples is the following: Hold simultaneously that (1) we are each unique individuals, and must owe first and primary duty to the enactment of our unique point of view; and (2) we are inseparably part of a greater whole, and must owe first and primary duty to enactions that serve the entirety.
Most people find a tension or opposition between these two, and they pick one or the other. But to recognize both, and simultaneously come from both, is to emerge as the child of both"
. -
Labyrinthus, my post to you had nothing to do with liberals or conservatives.
It does, however, have to do with my own spiritual and occult advancement under Aleister Crowley's system, which instructs as follows:
""You are expected to spend three months at least on the study of some of the classics on the subject. The chief object of this is not to instruct you, but to familiarize you with the ground work, and in particular to prevent you getting the idea that there is any right or wrong in matters of opinion. You pass an examination intended to make sure that your mind is well grounded in this matter, and you become a Probationer." - Aleister Crowley,* Eight Lectures of Yoga*, cap. VIII, as read in Eshelman, J. (2000). The Mystical and Magickal System of the A.'.A.'., p. 46."
As I said. It doesn't have anything to do with liberals or conservatives. It has to do with the degree to which you forsake that particular principle in defense of your own ego-positions and defend it with nothing but indignity that your opinion be challenged by those so apparently inferior to you that they do not agree with you.
I will say it again in the presence of several highly advanced, empirically defined initiates who are free to correct me at any moment - in which case I will be given the gift of allowing myself silence in the face of your Pontification: Out of all these people here present, some of whom I disagree with quite pointedly, you are the only one claiming your opinions are those that are of course natural to a truly spiritually advanced person. And, yes, its stench stings my discerning nose.
May the heart of V.V.V.V.V. and his search for Truth judge between us.
-
"it looks like some psychologically challenging periods lay ahead for serious seekers"
Indeed.
-
@Edward Mason said
"When people start mud-slinging about liberal or conservative attitudes,..."
wha??
How is "It never ceases to amaze me how Liberal the general occult and new age communities are", any kind of 'mud-slinging'?
One thing I've noticed...
When right wingers or conservatives are identified as such they will usually stare blankly back, blink once or twice and say "okay". But for some reason a large percentage of Lefties get offended. In fact they don't even like their political position to be identified at all. In the summer of 2008 nearly forty percent said they were conservative but something like only 20% admitted to being liberal. Yet election results shortly thereafter showed the numbers were actually more equal (at least!). I wonder why that is?
-
Labyrinthus, 93
"When right wingers or conservatives are identified as such they will usually stare blankly back, blink once or twice and say "okay". But for some reason a large percentage of Lefties get offended. In fact they don't even like their political position to be identified at all. In the summer of 2008 nearly forty percent said they were conservative but something like only 20% admitted to being liberal. Yet election results shortly thereafter showed the numbers were actually more equal (at least!). I wonder why that is?"
My point about mud-slinging actually referred to both liberal and conservative positions, although I was directly addressing your own doctrinaire stance by making it. Thelema isn't about liberalism, conservatism, marxism, corporatism, socialism, fascism, nor even libertarianism, at least in its more doctrinaire forms, which are often just concealed conservatism. It's an all-embracing approach to life and living, on all planes.
Many of us derive a political philosophy from Thelema, but any such valid philosophy is going to emerge from exploration and expansion of what comes up in the process of uncovering the True Will. A set of a priori conclusions about a presumed 'correct' political stance is simply an obstruction to conducting that process, and a major obstruction at that. Everything gets turned upside down and inside out at some point, and excluding the possibility of adopting a position completely contrary to an existing one isn't going to help at all.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
draaaaging this back on topic:
[we already have one thread in the off-topic forum if anyone wants to play schoolboy punchups, I'd appreciate if this one doesn't join it
]@Jim Eshelman said
"A political example just came to mind from late in the last century. It was Bill Clinton's position on abortion laws.
The heavily polarized view, of course, was that one side took a stand for women's right to control their own bodies, and the other side took a stance that abortions were immoral.
Clinton took the position that, their disagreements aside, both groups shared common ground: nobody wanted there to be more abortions! He called on both sides to join, therefore, in the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies.
This isn't a compromise. It isn't an "averaging." It's the fruit of taking the issue more within, rather than dealing with the manifest positions without. He didn't try to rearrange the pieces of the argument out on the table; instead, he took it deeper, backtracking along the perspectives until he found common ground which let each opposing position remain intact yet served both of them pretty well.
Come to think of it, this has always been part of Clinton's genius: The ability to intuit the common ground that lays under division factionalism. (Obviously he didn't always pull it off, but he was better at it than just about anybody.)"
Thanks for the example! I think I understand what you mean now. And this ties in with everything I've theorised about the Child up to this point: that it is both the marriage of the Father and the Mother while also being distinctly individual and unique; and that when we force together a 'pair of opposites' we get a product that is simultaneously 'both and neither'. As you mentioned with the example of Clinton, his final position involved neither of the two parties' policies, and yet at the same time managed to appease both of their core ideals.
Vav is spelt '××' (Vav-Vav) - thus "The Son is but the Son". Which is to say that although the Child is proof and product of its parents union, it is first and foremost its own being.
-
Compromise: A solution wherein both parties more or less equally fail to get what they want.
Quite often, though, in the absence of a real solution, it's usually better than the alternatives.
Usually... but not always. My favorite horror story of recent-past political compromise is the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Regrettably, both sides got what they wanted. Democrates wanted a way to provide permanent ownership housing for a particular large block of disadvantaged mothers (hence Fannie Mae etc.). Republicans objected for many reasons, but especially because they wanted less, rather than more, regulation in the real estate market. The brilliant solution (that's sarcastic BTW): Everybody gets what they want in that Congress authorized extremely high-risk ventures with no significant regulation and oversight!
Oversimplying a bit, but not much. Basically, if either side had exclusively gotten what it wanted we'd have been better off. If the Dems had gotten the risky programs introduced under very high levels of regulation, we'd have been fine. Or, if the Republicans had gotten their way, and the high-risk programs hadn't been created in the first place, we'd have been better off than it turned out. But instead, both parties more or less equally failed to get what they wanted, and shook hands on it: another day at the office for "compromise."
What we need instead are win-win solutions, which too often are confused with compromise, but are actually the opposite; because win-win solutions are those in which both parties get what they want to a fairly high level of mutual satisfaction.
In this sense, you can identify your Child Perspective as true win-win solutions.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Republicans objected for many reasons, but especially because they wanted less, rather than more, regulation in the real estate market. The brilliant solution (that's sarcastic BTW): Everybody gets what they want in that Congress authorized extremely high-risk ventures with no significant regulation and oversight!"
This is fairly typical of how the Left mis-characterizes the Right's position. It is not that Republicans wanted less oversight/regulation (recent DNC talking point, BTW), it is that the Republicans do not think ANY AMOUNT of regulation can prevent a bomb from going off once the fuse is lit. The idiot HUD program to create higher home ownership among the poor through the sub-prime loans was DESTINED TO FAIL. No amount of regulation or oversight could prevent it. A government employee watching a burning fuse will not change the inevitable outcome.
I just heard a report about how the recent government loan modification and $8000 tax-credit plan immediately began failing. After one month (1) 25% failed to make their house payment. After three months 60% missed a payment. Estimates are that over 70% will default on the restructured and new loans within the year. And guess what?... even though this idiot plan is failing miserably the dopey Congress has extended it till the end of September so it can be an even bigger failure!
When will people learn that we can not cure those who suffer from chronic money mis-management syndrome by giving them free money.
There is no such thing as a "government solution" for these types of problems. There is NO win-win solution when the government is involved. The child produced by government compromise in these matters results only in some sort of macabre "child of Frankenstein" abomination.
Another example is the Bernie Madoff ponzi scandal. The SEC went in to audit them and spent a week or so going over the books first hand, right there on the premises. Then they walk out and hand the operation a clean bill of health... !? !!!? A few months later the whole scam implodes. The government regulation and oversight didn't help a thing! So what is the first thing the Liberals clamor for? MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!
How is doing MORE of something that doesn't work make anything work better?
It is just mind boggling.
-
Mr. Eshelman said
"What we need instead are win-win solutions, which too often are confused with compromise, but are actually the opposite; because win-win solutions are those in which both parties get what they want to a fairly high level of mutual satisfaction."in looking for real life examples....
go to a playground or park and observe children at unstructured play.
If you want to see win win in action, I can think of no ground more fertile.Adults seem to have distortions and baggage that disallows most win win, and go for compromises which IME denotes that there is a loss.
Young children in social settings (espically semi-perminant, ie day care, or neighborhood groups- settings in which the child seems to understand that there will be regular interaction, as compared to the child who is taken once to a playground of strangers, in which case self preservation asserts) will suprise us in how they interact and treat each other. They will wait for a turn, they will participate in a game they dont want to-understanding that they will be rewarded with an activity they will like, they will be helpful to others and encourage, they go with the flow, they create, and solve......
But what they do, is nothing compared to what they dont do. (in most cases) they dont mistreat each other, and they dont exclude with out just cause. They dont compromise.
It seems to me that when adults "interfer" or police the interactions of children we dump our baggage so to speak on them, and create compromises. I caught myself doing this once, and even said out loud "life isnt fair" to my son, who claimed my compromise wasnt fair. I had to spend the next half hour eating my words, and trying to fix my inappropriate response.
I believe going to the source of the child perspective maybe helpful.
Now I know that there are many exceptions to this, and many can claim...."I saw kids doing the exact opposite of what you are claiming....." "Children are selfish" "Children are mean" and I am sure much more......
All I am trying to say, from my personal expierence working with children, and adults in educational and recreational situations......I have witnessed more beautiful examples of children creating win win situations. I have personally been able to apply to my personal life ideas I saw in action from children getting along. Wereas in adult situations dominance seemed to apply.