Don't Agree to Disagree!
Agree to disagree is a common english phrase,
though some variation of the concept that it is designed to convey
exists in nearly every culture on the planet.
It essentially means that no resolution
to a disagreement, debate or quarrel will occur,
and so continuing it is unnecessary, ineffective and pointless.
Therefore, it must come to an end,
by each party tolerating, but not accepting
the other's opposing opinion.
Essentially, the only way to find alignment
is to agree upon dropping the debate
and simply consent to disagreeing.
Having different opinions on a subject.
Many people within society
believe that agreeing to disagree
is a mature, amicable and conscious thing to do.
But the truth couldn't be further from it.
The first problem with agree to disagree
is that it thwarts both personal and universal expansion.
Let's take an objective look at this
from the universe's perspective, shall we?
This universe is hoping
that bringing people together with opposing opinions
will cause an expansion
relative to thought itself.
In other words,
this universe would hope
that people would continue to expand and reinvent
their own thoughts,
their own opinions and their own beliefs.
If two people are committed to truth,
but they come to the table holding two different perspectives,
what takes place in that moment
is an opportunity.
It's an opportunity for expansion
through arriving at a higher truth.
Either one person sees the other person's perspective
and realizes that that is actually closer to the truth,
and based off of that
they change their perspective
in ways that often benefit them
and also the people around them.
Or, because of their mutual commitment
to finding the truth,
their perspectives become more accommodative of each other
and they arrive at a higher truth,
than either of them held to begin with.
A philosopher is the person within society
that understands this the very most.
And perhaps second to that
a scientist must also understand this concept
in order to do good work.
To agree to disagree is to consciously declare a stalemate.
It is to agree to stuckness and lack of resolve
both of which directly defy progress and growth
and movement and expansion.
It is just as stuck to say: "agree to disagree",
as it is to act as if you agree with somebody
or say that you do, when in fact you don't actually.
Saying agree to disagree is not just a limitation for you,
It's an invitation for the universe
to turn the heat up on that particular issue
or point of stuckness.
Did you notice this universe has no patience for stuckness?
It escalates things.
Because it wants alignment, it wants expansion.
This means that if you declare or commit to a stalemate,
it's very short term.
The universe is going to turn the heat up on you.
There will come a point
where in the short term
this agreed to disagree might work,
but in the long term, there will be a crisis situation.
A situation that arises
that brings that point of contention to the surface again
in such an extreme way,
that there's no possible way to declare that stalemate.
Basically, it's going to cause a situation
to come to head where the situation at hand
does not allow for the toleration of each other's opposed perspectives.
The second problem with agreed to disagree
is just how impossible it actually is in many scenarios.
It's impossible once there's a conflict of interests.
It is not possible when it comes to topics that result in conflict,
which really matter.
Now some differences do not cause conflict,
these are little things.
Others do cause conflict.
These are big things.
They occur when two people's thoughts opinions beliefs or perspectives
are incompatible.
On top of this, like we said before...
While agree to disagree may be something you can do in the short term,
it's definitely not something you're going to be able to do in the long term,
because the universe is going to turn the heat up on it.
It will bring you to a scenario where you can't agree to disagree.
For example:
Let's say that somebody said:
"You know what? I think the best thing to do
would be to plow a road through your property."
And your opinion was:
"There is no way that that's the best thing to do.
That's the worst thing to do".
If you say agree to disagree,
you're going to wake up in the morning
to a road plowed straight through your property.
Opinions lead to choices
and they lead to actions.
People who believe that agree to disagree is possible,
seem to somehow think
that perspectives and beliefs and thoughts
don't lead to subsequent choices and actions.
Or that if they do...
those choices and actions are somehow not going to
negatively impact them.
That's just not the case.
The reality is that if opinions or perspectives are opposed,
then choices and actions will also be opposed.
And yes, that often affects other people.
This is why agree to disagree
really depends upon the variable of safety.
For example:
Let's say that one set of parents
believes 100% in vaccines
and the other set of parents
believes that they're the worst thing that could ever happen to someone.
These two sets of parents can only agree to disagree,
until there is a mandate or a law
that is up for passing
to make them required,
without exceptions.
The reason is that
if the parents who believe that all children must be vaccinated
believe that unvaccinated children are a health risk,
they may vote to take away body sovereignty as a human right.
There's no longer a way
for either set of parents to avoid or maintain the amicability
of this agreed upon stalemate
because they have now found themselves in a zero-sum game
with their safety on the line.
Another example...
When it comes to the universe bringing things to a head is:
In some families
it's pretty easy to say agree to disagree
relative to religion.
But what happens when somebody in that family passes away,
and suddenly it's a giant family fight
about what kind of a funeral service is going to be held.
Agree to disagree is conflict avoidance.
Plain and simple.
And avoidance does not make a conflict go away,
it simply delays it.
The third problem with agree to disagree
is that contrary to popular belief,
it is extremely damaging to relationships.
Agree to disagree is often how we try to avoid conflict
or prevent the loss of closeness with someone.
It's our way to remain on amicable terms
while continuing to disagree about unresolved issues.
To understand more about this, watch my videos titled:
How to Overcome The Fear of Conflict
&... How to Resolve A Conflict
People can in fact only say agree to disagree
when they believe that doing so,
will not negatively affect them.
This means that in order to say agree to disagree,
you have to perceive yourself to be separate
and living in a world where somehow
people's choices don't affect you or impact you.
Essentially you have to perceive yourself to be separate
and separate in a way that someone's opinion
will not lead to choices or actions
That go against your best interests, affect you or harm you in any way.
The motto is:
"As long as it doesn't affect me and mine."
It's a "you do you and I do me" philosophy of existence,
which is distancing by nature.
But all of this is hidden under the guise of tolerance.
It is in fact a rigid narcissistic and separate way of being.
All of which are a huge detriment to relationships.
It also must be said
that people who say "agree to disagree"
believe they are 100% right.
So, it's not tolerance.
What it is actually is somebody who's saying:
"You know...
I'm, just gonna basically back up on this one
and i'm gonna just be passive about it
and sit here and wait for you to wise up
and get your head out of your asshole,
because I know i'm right,
and pretty soon you're gonna figure that out".
"Oh and until then,
i'm just gonna put this whole thing under the floorboards."
Which in case you didn't notice,
is active suppression.
When people use this phrase:
"agree to disagree"
they are waiting for the "I told you so" moment.
Agreeing to disagree is about thinking you are right.
And so never ever fall into the lie
that agreeing to disagree
makes the acceptance of differences
or the acceptance of diversity of perspectives possible.
Another reason that agree to disagree damages relationships
is that it is a state of resistance
to finding alignment.
Or potentially a resistance to alignment in general.
Think of what is happening
as a person energetically deciding to forgo the experience of alignment
and think about what damage that could do to a relationship.
This is also a very out of reality type of perspective to hold
about a consensus reality.
Contrary to what you may believe,
this time space reality that you live in
it's a consensus reality.
That means you're not the only one creating this reality
no matter what you've been told.
Because of this,
it opens the door wide for zero-sum games in relationships.
To understand more about this, watch my video titled:
The Zero Sum Game in Relationships
(What is a Zero Sum Game and How to End One)
on top of this, seeing as how no actual resolution has come,
the unresolved conflict or opposition
exists as an elephant in the room.
It is an active state of dissonance
which adds considerably to the emotional tension
and pressure in a relationship.
It is also a giving up on alignment.
People who say agree to disagree,
do so because they feel powerless to finding alignment
or to get there to be any pliability
in their perspective or the other person's perspective or both.
Agree to disagree is therefore often a forfeit in a relationship,
relative to finding alignment or higher truth.
The fourth problem with agreed to disagree,
is that it allows people with a very poor sense of self,
to find their sense of self
through opposition.
It is more than possible for people to have a healthy sense of self
and to find alignment with other people at the same time.
But people who believe in agree to disagree
don't understand this.
And agree to disagree becomes their really out of alignment way
to try to accomplish
"I can have me and have you too".
Some people are so identified
with their thoughts, with their beliefs,
with their perceptions...
That they perceive any change in those things
to be a loss of self.
Also, whenever they achieve alignment
not only do they feel like they have lost themselves,
but that they've been consumed by the other person in some way.
With people like this,
who love to argue for agree to disagree,
you may hear things like:
"I'm entitled to my opinion".
By the way, this is a logical fallacy.
Let me explain why;
Whether someone has the right or is entitled to an opinion,
has nothing to do with whether their opinion is right or wrong
or is reflective of truth.
Therefore it's a way of discrediting opposition
and creating a diversion from the disagreement at hand.
It is to subconsciously fight for freedom.
The freedom or right not to be right,
not to be reasonable and to stick to their perspective
no matter what contradictory thoughts or evidence they are met with.
When that has nothing to do
with the actual validity of one's stance.
All this being said,
people use agree to disagree as a way of maintaining their identity
and feeling the awesome self-esteem kick
of being directly opposed to someone else's ideas.
This is especially the case
for people who have experienced enmeshment trauma in childhood.
They never feel more of a sense of core or freedom,
than when they're directly opposed to something.
This is quite literally
a version of:
"If i'm not fighting something, I die".
There are people who struggle with this.
Who feel as if reaching some form of agreement or alignment,
is a giving up of themselves or their personal truth in some way
and this couldn't be any further from the truth.
If you meet with evidence
or other thoughts that cause you to change the way you're thinking
you didn't lose a part of yourself
and you didn't even lose your own thought,
you amended your thought.
It's still yours.
It's a new one.
Agreed to disagree is also a way that people can maintain,
we're talking about self-concept,
an idea of themselves as enlightened or woke,
when this is not actually the case.
There are a great many things in the world
which people are convinced
make them good,
which in fact make them the opposite.
Things like meditating to escape reality,
or using positive focus as a tool of resistance,
or being politically correct to stay safe and performatively woke.
Agree to disagree is one of these things.
People love to think it makes them conscious,
amicable,
woke.
In fact, it makes them the opposite.
Instead of agreed to disagree,
we need to commit to finding alignment.
To be completely authentic and honest with you in this episode
given the situations at hand
and the situations that are on the horizon for the human race,
it is no longer a luxury for us to say agree to disagree.
In fact, if we keep standing on this laurel of agree to disagree,
what we're actually consenting to without knowing it, is bulldozing.
To understand more about this, watch my video titled:
Bulldozing
What I mean by this is that
I don't know if you've noticed,
but the universe is turning up the heat on the human race.
So if we stay in agree to disagree,
that doesn't mean that the people we disagree with
aren't going to take actions.
And those actions will be
directly opposed to our best interests.
No matter which side we're on.
You also need to consider that it isn't exactly a virtue
to only care about bulldozing
when we're the one on the underside of that bulldozer.
We need to be honest with ourselves
if our goal is something other than alignment and truth.
So I want you to ask yourself:
What is more important for you,
than alignment with others and why?
What is more important for you than truth and why?
I want you to notice
if you feel immediately like you must conform
when this topic is raised.
You need to address the fear of loss of self,
loss of freedom and loss of personal truth inherent in this.
Know that conformity is not true alignment.
And for those of you that might be panicking at this point,
I need you to know that conformity is not the same thing as alignment.
Far from it, in fact.
So conformity...
The letting go of your personal truth,
is not
what is being asked of you.
That is simply your trauma from childhood.
The only way to maintain close relationships with people
and to be safe,
is to let go of myself completely.
Again, not what is being asked.
We must seek to understand
instead of to agree.
That's the first step.
We must seek more,
more,
to see more,
to feel more, to hear more,
to understand and comprehend more.
To take in more of all of the different perspectives involved in any subject
we are examining.
We have to accept and own up to the reality
that our own personal experiences
have made us bias.
It has limited our perspective in many ways.
Making it so that that perspective is not accommodative
of all subjective perspectives
and therefore is not potentially reflective of objective truth.
Therefore, try to practice
seeking objective truth.
To understand more about this, watch my video titled:
Objective Truth
I want you to imagine that you have this core essence
that core essence is a bit like a
metal pole,
in this analogy.
And all of the things which make up your personality,
these things you are identified with,
the things you say "I, me and mine" to
are like sticking magnets to that pole.
The more identified you are with those things,
the more you will struggle with trying to find alignment.
You will struggle with objective perspective.
To reach objective perspective,
you need to develop the capacity to disidentify.
That is to be able to take that magnet off
and look at it as separate from that which you are.
But also, a part of that which you are.
The better you are at disidentifying
from your thoughts and beliefs and perspectives
the easier it will be to question and change them.
To understand more about this, watch my video titled:
Disidentification (The Practice of Non-Attachment)
I'm going to end this episode with a question;
Agree to disagree is really an assertion
that certain conflicts are unresolvable.
So I need to ask you:
Are certain conflicts completely unresolvable?
If so, should we accept
that certain conflicts are impossible to resolve?
What are the benefits of doing so?
What are the detriments of doing so?
Have a good week.
If you liked this video,
be sure to share it, like it and also subscribe to my channel
so you can see more content like this.
But I want to personally thank you for taking the initiative
and having the bravery to step into the space of awareness
not only for yourself,
but for the benefit of those around you.
Subtitles by: Tanya Duarte