The multiplicity inherent in the human body intrigues me. One foot swivels forward even as the other swings behind. Opposable thumbs enable me to grasp a pair of scissors which is handy in quilting. I have no explanation for the deftness with which birds construct a nest using only a beak. Having two eyes, and two arms enriches my capacity for depth perception and hugging. 

 

I recall the phrase "agree to disagree" as a kind pf peace pipe. We do not see things the same way, but that need not erase the potential for collaboration. 

 

A friend sent a list of mediation strategies, and the lead one was this very idea. For two people who are stepping into conversation around a conflict, it can be a sign of good faith to agree to disagree. If I am invested in shared understanding, rather than persuasion, listening to another person's views can add depth to my own. 

 

Yet sometimes people consider a disagreement to be justification for ending the conversation before it begins. Let's retreat to our corners and ramp up  strategies. 

 

Recently, I asked our kids on a family chat whether they had been on a see saw. The oldest few certainly had, and the twins have not. Somewhere in the middle of our brood, see-saws were considered too dangerous, and were yanked out of local playgrounds. 

 

My memories are of rhymes to entice the friend on the other end to push off the ground and let me down. It was most fun when the see-saw did what it was designed to, and kept moving. Without even rudimentary understanding of physics, we learned that smooshing back toward the end of the plank gave us more power. Edging back to center cost us leverage.

 

Recent issues remind me of those days on the playground. Am I willing to come closer to the middle, in the effort to hear someone else? Can the conversation keep moving, or will I take my marbles and go home?