Is the world the way it is, or is it the way you see it?

I’ve asked myself this question several times since the first time someone asked me on September 2018 in Boulder, CO as I began my certification in ontological coaching with Newfield Network. I have also gotten into the habit to ask others in order to broaden my point of view with others’ way of thinking. In general, the answers have been balanced between both options. Once in a while someone will say that it can be a combination of both, and one person questioned if the world actually existed, she said, “it’s not how I see it or how it is, because maybe it isn’t”. This gave me much to think about and almost derailed me completely at the beginning of a presentation in front a large group of people. Take time to ponder the question. Not necessarily in order to answer it, but rather to “sit” with the question and allow it to do its job.

There is a group of people that argue that the earth if flat. In a relatively recent period, that did not sound far-fetched. In fact, back then the earth was not only flat, but it was also the center of the universe and the sun revolved around us. Today many can view this as ignorance, but it is part of our history and of our linguistic that influences how we refer to the “movement” of the sun by saying the sun rises and goes down. Even though we know how the world is, the way in which it was seen many years ago still influences us today. 

Copernicus not only changed our concept of the Earth with his theory that the sun was the center of the universe, but also the way in which we viewed ourselves. We were not the most important beings anymore. Since then, we have been on a drift that emphasizes on the external world. Reason has been the protagonist and the focus of our attention. Descartes’s famous cogito ergo sum is a perfect example of this standard. Suffice to look at the importance we have given to that which we can proof, evidence, numbers, and the way in which we discard the rest.

In 1976, an economist that argued that the only corporate social responsibility that a company has is to increase profits, that social responsibility (a subversive theory) is an obstacle to economic competitivity, and corporate performance was awarded with the Nobel Prize in Economics. Recent studies show that companies that invest in and promote happiness and well-being in their employees outperform others in investments in the S&P 500 by 50% in 2o14, happy workers are 13% more productive, they show a 160% increase in sales, and 400% greater growth in their earnings. It doesn’t escape me that I am using facts from the external world to make a case for what can be considered the internal world. It just shows that the way we view the world influences how we show up, but also that it is now a zero-sum game.

Do we just have one planet Earth?

Focusing solely on the external world has granted us exponential progress in technological development and progress as a society, but also entails adverse effects. It is possible that we are seeing what Albert Einstein feared would happen when technology surpassed our human interaction. With this I am not saying we should turn our back on the external world and dive headfirst into, and only into the internal world. If we do that, we will most likely end up with another set of difficulties. The proposal is to integrate both worlds; invite the body and the emotions back into the conversation.

The stigma around talking about emotions has diminished, but for many, talking to a psychologist is a sign of weakness and should be reserved only for drastic cases, for a short period, and without letting anyone find out. Another example is, “In order to have effective conversations we need to keep emotions out if it”. Take another moment and consider if it is actually possible to have even one thought without feeling an emotion.

The principal model of the ontological methodology is the OAR model: observer, action, and results. If doing the same thing and expecting different results is a definition of insanity, then changing our actions to reach different results is logical. The problem is, who is designing the new action? To change actions, we must include entering into the realm of the person that is acting; observe how we are observing ourselves, the world, and the way we are showing up and interacting inside of it. The BEL model: body, emotions, and language, provides us with a simple and powerful way to integrate the elements that make up the ontological dynamic which is to be.

But wait, when will I ever use ontology?

Let’s briefly go over some of the strategies. The distinction between assertions and assessments allows us to address this article’s first question. An assertion is ascertainable while an assessment in an interpretation. We live in our assessments. Many times, we are not even aware of them, yet they are the main reason behind the decision we make and the actions we take. They reveal more about our observer than about the real situation. Historic context, beliefs, upbringing, all come into play. Breaks in transparency are excellent opportunities to bring them to the forefront, observe them, and decide if they are serving us or if would better serve to replace them with others that would better align with who we are and who we are striving to become. A good place to start is by asking yourself these two questions: what is the benefit? and what is the cost? This reflection should shine some light on the matter, even if it’s just a light at the end of the tunnel.

Maybe you’ve noticed that others and external situations can affect your mood. Practicing the 4 Body Dispositions of stability, resolution, openness, and flexibility can influence your state, and therefore, the manner in which you show up. By getting familiar with them, you’ll know which better serves you according to the situation you’re in at any given moment.

Many of us may feel disconnected from our emotions, we may have a hard time regulating them, and even recognizing them might be a challenge as a result of the 400–500-year drift we mentioned before. A simple exercise to connect with your emotional reality is to place your left palm on your heart with your index finger and thumb parallel to your clavicles to give your body and heart a voice through your throat; simply ask and listen. It is impressive to see the speed with which, people that are convinced to not feel and don’t believe, respond with amazement. And to enter into both realms at the same time, when you feel something and are not sure why, close your eyes and locate the physical manifestation of the emotion. Observe it without judgment, but with curiosity.

Ready to thrive?

If you feel nerves that are resisting these concepts or fear is paralyzing, you to stay where you are – you are not alone. Everything that is new is scary and frustrating. I invite you to consider that in the long run, it is more frustrating to keep living your life on full throttle with the emergency brake on (because it’s what we know) than to venture out and discover what you are truly capable of by allowing yourself to develop your full and authentic potential.