Desmond Sherlock's Page

In a way, it doesn't matter what our genders or age is, because we will probably never meet. I'm located in Hawaii and you're in Australia, and we are members of a club specializing in the study of thought and thinking as a skill. Mostly, I am corresponding with you because you will respond to me. Also, it is interesting for me to read what you have to say because what you mean, your motives, your purposes and your point of view are unique.

Your search for an agreement seems to be a virtual, transcendent question. Perhaps you can outline these questions for me?

I think that as long as you will not define the sort of a agreement you want to have with me, that you're going to be a difficult person who seems to be refusing to come to any agreement. Because for you, apparently Agreement is a transcendent experience that will never be reached. Am I understanding that correctly?

I have more to say in reply to what you wrote back, but I'm too tired right now...more later.

You mentioned a definition of agreement that you shared with your bro, but you didn't offer it here. I'd love to see it. How else would I know if I want to agree to it or not? What do you have if you can't define the word "agreement"?

So would you like to try to pursue an agreement Franis? But a warning that is basically like proposing marriage and the possible implications if it was "agreed' to.

That's pretty intense, to say that for us to have an agreement it's a matter of death-do-us-part. From my romance with intensity, I've learned that someone who requires that intense level of commitment premature to a reasonable time spent in relationship - this matches the profile of an abuser.

What if we spelled out ways in which we already are agreeing? We do have many points of agreement that we have already established.
For instance, we're agreeing to write to each other - returning to this site to respond in a timely manner. We're agreeing to use English. We're agreeing to hold our conversation in public rather than privately. (Not that many people would care to look, but it's there if they want to do so.)

See, I've just given you another tool that you can use on your favorite topic. You're not offering me much, and you seem to be getting quite a bit from me. Are you game to continue to explore this level of agreement? If so, can you spell out other ways that we already are in agreement that are assumptions that are already present between us?

To do this, you'll need to think, observe and describe.

I guess if you can't explore this level of agreement in a less absolute and intense drama-queen fashion, we can't have your absolute brand of "agreement." I'm not sure if it's possible to know someone on an intense level of intimacy from corresponding in writing, or even phone calls. Have tried that in the past multiple times and it doesn't seem to work for me.

But still am curious what your definition of "agreement" is that is so absolute.

What would you like our "rules of engagement" to start from? Please spell out for me what your perception is of the agreement we have, so I know your version of we can build from. Being siblings gives a history of ground rules that you and I do not have. What do we have?

In your quest for the Holy Grail of agreement that is Your Thing, you seem to be assuming that there isn't an agreement. This is a needlessly divisive and argumentative stance - what de Bono would call a perceptual point of view. Raymund Kwok noticed the same thing about you - it's a character feature!

This is an offering for you - messages from multiple people who have no vested interest in how you come across to them.

The best way to continue with agreement is to assume there is apparently already an agreement, and proceed to build from that point onward. Learning de Bono's idea of "movement" is essential - or something similar to it.

You seem to have little idea what "movement" is or curiosity about it. You don't seem to be capable of building with forward movement contributions or openness to learning new things, but only of wearing the Black Hat and repeating yourself. If you continue to back up to be certain whether or not there is your style of agreement repeatedly, it makes you come across to others as a fascist and a proselytizer. It's your way or the highway. This procedure is not a constructive way to get the agreement you say that you want!

Was just curious if you have moved past the state of continuously asking for only your brand of "agreement." Evidently you haven't. Or are you in the act?

I know this is the case right now, because you're busy right now with your exciting challenge to help people quit smoking... but do you mean, I haven't offered you enough value to continue to engage with me or the other clowns on this site?

What would that value be? How would you know you were getting it?

Your Agreement Moderation model is really interesting.
I find that people really miss when the other person they are having an argument with is willing to be accountable, adjustable, agreeable. Most of what is missing is present in the body language of each person. It's as if, during an argument, each person becomes autistic and completely misses the indicators of agreement, accountability, and willingness to compromise or problem-solve.

Hey, Desmond, I want re-engagement!! Where are you? What have you been up to lately?

Desmond, please continue to be a member here. I would miss what you have to say. I share your attraction for people who dare to say what might "rock the boat". It takes courage to fly in the face of the prevailing agreement. You have this courage.

In fact, to focus on communication, please join the Group section of "disagreements" and start a thread with your last post on the PMI thread. It's the place where to take comments and directions that come up that might "hi-jack" any ongoing thread. What you have suggested is a very interesting point, actually - that de Bono's work should be challenged because it's out of date. Perhaps more people might be interested in seriously exploring the idea, or at least refuting it!

If you would look at the de Bono code, (which might especially interest you) you could even suggest how it could be improved and/or updated, etc. I'd like to join you in doing that. I'm sure de Bono and others here would be stimulated hearing anyone's suggestions about how his tools could be "updated."