Most people don’t openly talk about personal matters in a blog such as this but I find it makes things clearer to see them in black and white print before the eyes. Then, instead of it swirling around the brain, one can see it before the eyes and it becomes easier to be dispassionate.
The big thing is to extract the emotion from situations before deciding, put it all down on paper, so to speak.
As for others, sometimes people need to observe, read the signs and not push too hard. All things eventually come to those who wait, if they’re the right thing to do. Patience.
My view is that every person is his/her own realm, own little bubble, that he/she is the sole arbiter of what happens or doesn’t happen within that bubble.
He/she also has to learn consequences of decisions – that this bubble has to work in with many other bubbles out there.
And equally, every person can delegate that power over his/her bubble if he wishes. However, if he/she does, that does not mean others will accept that.
Example – someone sells his soul to the devil, murders someone, says to the police that the ‘devil made me do it’. It might be so but it’s no defence in law and that person should go down for it. A husband might decide he can’t do anything without his wife’s permission but that’s not how an outsider sees it. If I talk to that man, I’m talking to him, not to his wife.
A man or woman on the bottle or needle has abrogated his power to decide to something inanimate. That’s a very foolish thing to do. The only thing we have is this power over ourselves. Your only power over me is that which I allow you to have. These are important principles.
It may be that a man will look at his own decision making and conclude that he hasn’t done it very well in life, that he has hurt people etc. He might wish to abrogate that primary power over himself. That’s what John 3:16 is all about – it’s about a conscious decision on the part of the person over his own soul, his own right to make decisions. But that’s for him, not for anyone else. There’s no right to expect anyone else to do as he’s done.
In the community, so many people don’t really wish for freedom – they wish for security. I don’t believe many people do have freedom or power over themselves – not nearly as much as they like to think – I believe that something or someone, whether it’s the bottle, the needle, the obsession, the project, the cycle of revenge, the govt, the wife – that that is what has the power and people allow it to happen.
Often they can’t even see it. Often they know very well their failing but can’t stop it.
What I do know is that my life is my own, unless I hand over some powers to a Higher Authority, which I’ve done in my case. Therefore, if you come at me, demanding I do this or that, it’s not arrogance on my part when I say I’ll decide and get back to you. It’s a simple statement that I must consider this request and speak to my Boss, then speak to people close to me and from all this, I have the facts needed to decide.
That’s how I made major decisions when I was a headmaster. It wasn’t democracy but it did involve listening to others, canvassing quality opinion and then deciding. And ‘quality’ meant that most people looked up to that person, not what I personally felt.
Some of you reading this would have picked up the discrepancy already. Having written that I speak with that man, not his wife, what if he asserts that it’s his wife and himself or no one? What if the UK says it’s the EU and us, or nothing? What if Bulgaria says it’s EU law or nothing?
The only choice then is for the other person to make decisions based on that. In Putin’s case, it meant the end of South Stream. In the case of the UK, I and millions of others will not consider the EU in decisions about us. Therefore we act to bring the EU down.
I wanted a lady to make a change on her blog once. All I could do was present my case and back off. She then did her own research, spoke to her own people, did it her way. Then she made a decision and wrote back. And that’s the most power we can ever have over others or rather – should have.
There’s a man I know who says to his little granddaughter: ‘Here’s what we’re doing today.’ She’s learnt to ask: ‘And if I don’t want?’ He answers: ‘Well here are the consequences.’ But she is still the one who decides for herself whether to comply or not. And of course, there is a lot of love going on in there too.
I really like that – it acknowledges the person’s right to make decisions for herself, even if coerced. And she stands or falls by her decision. So she learns discretion, thinking it through, being calm when deciding. She learns to push on this point but not on that. She learns she’s going to get a result here with a little tantrum but not there.
But it only works if he’s consistent. If he never bows to pressure. A kid needs consistency in an adult and I think an adult needs it too. If I say I’ll decide something by Tuesday, then I’ll decide it by Tuesday. Actually – I must stick to that because the whole edifice depends on that consistency.
What’s the N1 thing people have against Call Me Dave? His u-turns of course, how he reneges at the drop of a hat. No one can trust him. Now everyone’s watching Nigel, waiting to see him u-turn.
So, if you’re about to change a policy, what do you do? Stick to your policy guns, no matter what, change instantly or go through a long process of fact gathering and debate? You’re damned if you’re cavalier, you’re dithering if you go through the process.
Above all, you have to mean what you say. Someone whose very existence is having power over others is going to utterly hate a person who makes his or her own decisions. The EU hates it, people in our own lives hate it.
But it’s the right thing to do.