Semantic Restructuring is the pursuit of enlightenment, enlivenment, empowerment through the creative re-arranging of the building blocks of meaning. For a better description, Start Here.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Months | ||
|---|---|---|
| Jan | Feb | Mar |
| Apr | May | Jun |
| Jul | Aug | Sep |
| Oct | Nov | Dec |
Bateson, books, cogling, context, CPB, embodiment, framing, I Ching, paradox, perception influence, prisdem, semantic punctuation, sensation, techniques, unconscious
There is a slightly paradoxical element to the classic, "Getting to Yes": Although most of the focus is placed on re-framing the relationship of the parties to one of cooperative problem solving, there is nonetheless an underlying thread of threat. The specific manifestation of this element is what the authors call "BATNA", an acronym for "Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement". The system in "Getting to Yes" is not the vapid "can't we all just get along" mentality in which "win-win" is little more than a gloss for "everyone loses for peace at any price." It is instead built on each party unilaterally assessing her worst-case-scenario and then working to improve on that. Perhaps, then, the simplest way to parse "Getting to Yes" that the negotiator balances the representations of what each party hopes for, the "best case scenario" of each party, with valid representations of worst case scenario for each party.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)