COMMUNICATION MODEL BISCHOP

The System Law Level as the Foundation of the Communication Levels – The Bischop Communication Model

I have added a third level to the two communication levels, the factual and the relational level (cf. Watzlawik: Kommunikationstheorie): the system law level (communication model Bischop).

It is the foundation of the communication model Bischop. This level decides whether the relationship and factual levels function and can be stable. Similar to a house, which needs a solid foundation to be able to place the floors on.

At the same time, it is very helpful to use this third level to deal with conflicts, because most people do not want to look at the relationship level in a conflict. On the one hand most people are afraid of it and on the other hand it is usually not helpful at all because the cause lies in the foundation.

Nor does it make sense to repair a damaged roof if the cause has not been uncovered beforehand. In my experience, 99 percent of the cause of conflicts can be found at the system law level, i.e. in the foundation.

The three solution and communication levels in the Bischop communication model

ARROW DIRECTIONS / EFFECTS IN THE BISCHOP COMMUNICATION MODEL

The direction of the arrow from the system law level to the functional level means: The thick arrows from the system law level to the relationship level and then to the functional level on the left side of the figure illustrate the effect. Violations at the system law level have a negative effect on the relationship level and make collaboration at the functional level more difficult. Unsolvable conflicts then appear on the factual level, and the positions are hardened. But this can also lead to injuries or negative effects from the factual level to the relational and systemic level, represented by the thin arrows running from top to bottom.

Direction of arrow from positive intention to negative effect: On the right side of the figure you will find an explanation of why system law violations occur without this having been or is intended. Many people, whether married couples or business partners, wonder why their previously good relationship has deteriorated. In the past they could solve their conflicts by themselves, but the relationship was still right.

It makes sense to assume that each person is doing the best for himself at all times. Thus it has itself in its acting or behavior, which often ̶ however not only ̶ on the Sachebene shows up ̶, a positive intention for itself.

In addition, there is also the positive intention for the counterpart, i.e. to want the best for the counterpart.

If these positive intentions, whether for oneself or for the other, are not expressed, there are often negative effects on the systemic level. In most cases, the causer, the one with the positive intention, is not aware of this violation.

Positive intentions in action can have negative effects and often lead to hurt feelings at the system law level.

Two examples illustrate this:

Example 1: In road traffic, someone crowds in.

Factual level – positive intention: The lead pusher makes the best of himself, because he has to make an appointment quickly and is already late. Normally, he does not intend that the driver he has jumped feels bad.

System law level – negative impact: The driver who has been pushed feels unrespected and as a result feels bad and angry. If the lead driver does not raise his hand as a sign of recognition, the relationship and material levels will deteriorate and the injured driver may step on the gas and push himself forward and hurt the first lead driver. This is how the loop of injuries begins, which can escalate further and further.

Solution: The pusher knows the possible emotional effect of the pusher, because someone has pushered himself into the pusher before. So he knows the basic feeling of bad feeling and anger.

Therefore the pusher immediately raises his hand with the right inner posture as a sign for: “It wasn’t my intention, I’m sorry if you feel bad. I take responsibility for this, i.e. I also take anger from you”. This usually dissolves the hurt feeling and anger and the situation de-escalates.

By doing so, he recognizes the system laws and also the injury, so that normally the injured feeling dissolves and the anger and situation de-escalates. This happens without the (previously) injured driver knowing the positive intention of the other, i.e. the reason why he jumped the queue. Here you can see that it is not necessary to know the positive intentions, but only that the system laws are recognized and the injuries are seen and resolved.

However, if the pusher tells his reasons, e.g. that he has to make an appointment quickly, which is very important, the resolution of the injury is often reversed because you may say to yourself: “As if I don’t also want / have to make an appointment quickly or go home”.

The declaration of positive intentions is more likely to be received as justification and is not helpful in resolving violations at the system law level.

Since the “Why did you do this?” question cannot be asked in road traffic, no explanation or justification is sought for the behaviour. Therefore, such system law violations are only resolved by “raising the hand” without justification.

Example 2: “I never wanted a man from the East who was in the Navy.”

In a couple mediation (couple with child) it turned out that the first injury was caused by the fact that the partner said to the partner in the second week after getting acquainted: “I never wanted a man who comes from the East and is in the Navy”. Her partner came from the East and was then employed by the Navy.

Factual level – positive intention: The woman wanted to make it clear to him that he is still the chosen one and how strongly she loves him.

System law level – negative effect: At that time the man had not understood the positive intention of the woman and felt hurt. “Does she really want me? Why did she say such a thing?” were his thoughts. He also did not have the courage to ask her these questions through his pink glasses, whereby the violation of the system law was not immediately clarified and continued to have an effect.

The other day they both drive together, where he didn’t talk to her for an hour. That was the first injury for the partner.

So began the loop of injuries, which escalated more and more.

Solution: The partner could tell the partner: “Your statement – none from the East and in the Navy – caused my stomach ache.” The partner was shocked because she had meant well with her statement. She was able to acknowledge his suffering and thus his first injury was resolved.

Thereupon both could imagine that he had not been silent for an hour while driving, but had talked to her as in the days before. He could then acknowledge her hurt feelings, which he felt sorry for.

So we went with each new idea (the next systemic violation would not have happened but it would have been good) to the next systemic violation (mostly alternating) and were able to resolve all major injuries of the last seven years.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POSITIVE INTENTION FOR ONESELF AND FOR ONE´S COUNTERPART

At this point, the recurring question of what is a positive intention and what is the difference between one’s own and that of the other is dealt with in more detail.

In example 1 above there is only one positive intention of the pusher. He wants to make an appointment quickly. He has no positive intention for the other driver.

In example 2 above there are two positive intentions: The woman makes the statement to make it clear to her partner how much she loves him. She has the positive intention that love grows and they remain a couple. At the same time she has the positive intention for her partner that he should feel safe and that love grows and they remain a couple.

Further information on the Bischop communication model and systemic mediation can be found in my book: “Systemische Mediation”, Verlag Ludwig, Kiel, 2016.

THE TWO NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GRAPEVINE

Very often others are talked about without them being present – office grapevine, gossip…

If the statements are negative or on the level of identity such as: “He is …”, “She is …”, then two negative effects arise.

AVOID OFFICE GRAPEVINE, AS TWO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARISE

1. There is a violation of systemic law, namely exclusion of the person being talked about, and it is not respectful

2. The interpretation loop – “glasses” is passed on. This means that one person wears “red glasses” and tells the other person who wore “blue glasses” before the conversation. After the conversation, the person then wears a combination of glasses, e.g. “purple glasses” over the person who is not present.

These “purple glasses” can lead to the fact that it has never been good before or that even when getting to know each other, it can no longer be good thanks to the “purple glasses”.

Usually, bosses obtain information about a new employee from the previous department or employer. Behind this is a positive intention for the boss and the company to be able to make a decision or to prepare themselves. Nevertheless, this can lead to a slight prejudice and thus have a negative influence on getting to know each other.

Another typical example from the world of work for exclusion and a change in “glasses” is when an employee has a conflict with his colleague and goes to his superior without informing his colleague in advance. The colleague feels ignored and a loss of trust or even distrust occurs.

Example Escalation Management: Escalation management is a process in which the responsibility for a decision is transferred in a controlled manner to the hierarchically higher level (superiors) if no agreement can be reached in a conflict situation at the lower decision-making levels. It presupposes that the parties to the conflict are each informed that the situation is escalating.

If two employees have a conflict and one of them goes to the boss for a solution, he must inform the other employee in advance that he will contact the superior in order to comply with the first system law “Right to belong (no exclusion)”.

The boss should first of all ask the employee if his colleague knows that he is presenting the topic to the boss. If not, i.e. there is an exclusion, the boss should not discuss the topic, but the exclusion should be lifted first. However, if the boss listens to the topic, he also excludes the employee and partly receives the “glasses” of the employee.

In summary, the optimal procedure to avoid exclusion is

1. One employee informs the other that he/she is going to see the boss on the subject.

2. the boss asks whether the other employee is informed.

3. the boss talks to both of them together.

The same procedure is to be followed when it comes to escalation over hierarchical levels.

If there is an unsolvable conflict between the employee and the head of department, the employee must also inform the head of department in advance that the employee will visit the manager on the subject. And the manager should also ask here whether the head of department knows about it. From a systemic point of view, the employee has permission to escalate if the entire system or he is in danger.

Conclusion: In order to avoid exclusion, both conflict parties should go to the higher level together, or the higher level talks to both conflict partners at the same time.

Conclusion: Do not talk/bitch about others. Others interrupt when they talk about others.

DISSOLVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF OFFICE GRAPEVINE

Gossip, office grapevine and blasphemy are commonplace and normal for most people. Whether in the private or professional environment, it happens everywhere.
Nevertheless, it has two major disadvantages or consequences.

1. Exclusion ̶ the first system law is violated, with the consequence of suffering and anger
If a person is talked about in their absence, they are excluded. Often the statements about third or fourth persons come back to the excluded person ̶ of course changed as in the game “Silent mail”.

Exercise 1: Would I say the same if she was there?

Would you say the same about the person not present if they were present? If not, then at least phrase it that way.

That is, you follow the feedback rules and describe only the objective behavior. There should be no interpretation, evaluation or a “who is …” or “who are …” statement on the identity level.

However, it is best not to talk about others at all. Whether positive or negative. Because there is another consequence.

2. The view is shaped

Die Sichtweise ̶ metaphorisch als „Schubladendenken“ oder „welche Brille habe ich auf“ beschrieben ̶ verändert sich bei der Person, die etwas über die nicht anwesende Person hört.

Exercise 2: Prejudgment

Do you remember a person you met and heard about before?
Even if you have tried to look at the person neutrally and without prejudice, your attitude has been coloured.

What was the coloration? And was your “image” confirmed or was the person different?

For this reason you should respectfully interrupt others when someone is talking about others. Especially if it is judgmental and negative or contains “who is …” statements.

This is especially true for role models such as parents, teachers or managers. The more parents or managers (and of course everyone else) display this behaviour of not talking about others or preventing it, the fewer violations occur at the systemic law level. This would already be a great gain.

Systemic mediation: Procedure for situations in which one person has heard something about the other person before (the question applies to both conflict partners):

1. Had you already talked to other people (family, friends, former employer) about the current conflict partner before you met him? Had you heard anything about the conflict partner (also about corners)?

Which reputation preceded it?

2 Even if you have tried to delete or neutralize what you have heard, experience shows that something sticks. The “glasses” are somewhat coloured. If you look at this colouring, how much prejudice or bias is there now?

3. To what extent did this colouring of the “glasses” determine your getting to know each other?

4. If you remove this bias, what changes?

What would have been your first meeting? What changes? Could it have been good then?

RESOLVE A SYSTEM LAW VIOLATION

THE FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESOLVING SYSTEM LAW VIOLATIONS – THE POWER CODE

In order to resolve a system law violation, five requirements are necessary:

The trigger(s), perpetrator(s), or person(s) responsible must be known.
There must be a time when everyone (causer and injured) can say it was good (so respect was present = appreciative attitude is possible). The first cause must be known.
The injured person and the causer must be sufficiently balanced ++ powerful.
Linguistically correct procedure (no accusations or justification)
The new, the new “glasses” must develop

The correct linguistic approach is dealt with here. Experience has shown that we learn to deceive ourselves or to explain our behaviour. Both do not lead to a solution, but often to an intensification of the conflict.

Linguistically correct procedure

Injured:

Appreciative attitude: Both go back to the time when it was good for both of them and talk about it. This is the prerequisite for the appreciative attitude.

Perception: The injured person describes the situation or behaviour of the causer as objectively as possible – without reproach or interpretation (see interpretation loop).

Effect: The injured person describes and shows his basic feeling I, i.e. his suffering: “My stomach hurt, I had a racing heart, …”. – without interpretation.

Often, instead of the basic feeling I, the feeling of thinking like “I feel ignored or not respected” is pronounced here. This usually leads to an injury for the causer and the process stops.

Example statements for basic feelings I in the event of a system violation

restlessness, tingling, heart palpitations, stinging, tickles in the throat, pain in the stomach/belly/head, cramping, trembling, soft knees, shock, pressure/narrowness, sweating, dizziness, dry mouth, tears in the eyes, weeping/sad, flabby voice, stiffness, no air, no feeling anymore, cold, incongruity, cold shiver, fear …

What basic feelings do you know?

Example statements for thinking feelings in case of a system law violation

Passed Over, Resigned, Not Respected, Excluded, Worthless, Unjust, Deceived, Angelogen, Not Seen, Left Alone, Unimportant, In Last Place …

Which statements about mental feelings do you know?

Systemic Mediation

It is important that the basic feeling I is pronounced and shown and not the feelings of thought are mentioned, because they have arisen through an interpretation and will lead to an injury.

Causer:

Appreciative attitude: The causer goes back mentally to the time when it was good for both (How was it when getting to know each other?). This is the prerequisite for an appreciative attitude.

Recognition: The causer recognizes the basic feeling I, the sorrow, by compassionately feeling himself and saying the following from the right posture: “I am sorry that these hurt feelings arose with you, it was not my intention”. This dissolves the injury, the suffering.

The causer does not talk about his behaviour or his positive intention behind the behaviour, because it mostly comes as justification.

Compensation: The causer takes back, if necessary, the part of anger for which he is responsible, and possibly provides further compensation.

New behavior: “Had I known that my behavior hurt you, my behavior would have been different, namley …”

The linguistically correct procedure is in the first three steps equal to giving feedback and to the method of non-violent communication from Rosenberg.

RESOLVING FIXED INTERPRETATION

One’s own rigid interpretation of a situation prevents one from recognizing what is needed to make it go ahead. There are quick conflicts and rifts between people who should work together to solve a problem.

How do we deal with fixed interpretations in coaching or team development?

RESOLVING FIXED INTERPRETATION – DEALING WITH IT IN COACHING

THINKING AND THINKING FEELINGS – THE LOOP OF INTERPRETATION / “GLASSES”

The perception ladder or interpretation loop is an explanatory model for how communication often takes place and which internal dynamics and feedback loops can occur. If system law violations occur, this interpretation loop is more intensive.

The reflexive loop (feedback):

My beliefs and conclusions influence which data I choose next time and how I interpret it.

An example: In a meeting or lecture someone yawns

1. Selection of the data: A participant yawns.

2. Interpretation: disinterest or boredom (possible other typical interpretations would be): Lack of oxygen or the participant is tired)

3. Feelings of thinking: anger, fear, insecurity …

4. conclusions and beliefs: Either: I am not good enough, I bore him – when I refer to myself. Or: The other is d…, he is always like that etc. – when I refer to him.

5. action based on the developed convictions: Either I turn red, try harder or I become aggressive or I turn away from the other person.

6. is again 1. – New data are selected (feedback loop, because the beliefs also influence the data selection). If the other person then looks out of the window or writes in his notebook, the “glasses” are confirmed: I am like this or he is like this.

It can no longer be imagined that the other might have made notes out of interest or looked out of the window to process what he had heard.

A life without additional interpretations or conclusions is not possible, because interpretations serve e.g. to determine in fractions of seconds whether a danger threatens or not.

However, it is important to know that one interprets that this does not have to be reality, but that it can also be different.

It is also useful to think about getting out of this loop. There are three possibilities.

Interpretation is not perception, because it is filtered.

What have you objectively observed? How would a video camera record it?

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION

If you look at the adjacent person, what do you perceive?

In general, I get the following answers: She is thoughtful, withdrawn, introverted or purposeful.

These answers are not perceptions, but interpretations. Everyone has his or her own interpretations, and if they do not fit in with the other person, it can be argued about. But not about a perception.

So what is a perception?

She sits, her upper body is bent forward by about 15 degrees, her hands touch each other, her left hand is bent to the right and touches her chin…

Excercise: Create a table and in the left column write typical interpretations of yourself as you describe others. Put your perception in the middle column. In the right column write down possible further interpretations.

Interpretation	Perception (concrete)	Further interpretation
unsteady	trembling in the voice	flustered
on the run	Posture bent forward	interested
thoughtfully	Chin resting on the hand	sad
rejection	Hands crossed in front of abdomen	snug
?	?	?
?	?	?

From this task it may become clear to you how dangerous it is to draw a certain conclusion from a posture. Ask yourself or your client: “What could another interpretation or conclusion look like?

Often there is only one interpretation. So ask yourself/your client the question:
Could it also be different?
What could be another interpretation?
Find a contrary interpretation. If, for example, a listener yawns, this does not necessarily mean that the listener is bored. It could also be that he slept badly or that there is a lack of oxygen in the room.

Edit your beliefs, beliefs and conclusions by first uncovering them and then changing them.

There are beliefs that can be easily changed and others that can only be changed through coaching.

The thinking feelings can be influenced by a changed thinking, for example a different interpretation of the situation, but the resulting basic feelings are not dissolved.

The basic feelings are the deeper feelings that exist when one does not think.

There are several reasons for it, if the interpretations and/or conclusions are negative and stand as cemented. Let us take a look at the interpretation loop, which describes in a model way how interpretations and conclusions come about. At the bottom of the picture, at the foot of the ladder, everything is still objective. When information is selected, it becomes subjective.

– Subjective selection / filter: Each person has different internal programs, how the information is recorded and what is filtered out. This includes the metaprograms. Each person records information in a very individual way. This specific way of perception and processing has been developed by the environmental conditions and the role model function of relevant reference persons in each individual.
These metaprograms or filters function as perception grids and preferred processing mechanisms and serve primarily to simplify perception and analysis processes. This has advantages but also disadvantages. On the one hand, filters are used to filter out information. On the other hand, they can also act as catalysts and generate amplification.
All metaprograms are potentially available to everyone, and with a little practice they can be made more flexible and used more often.

The most common metaprograms are the following:

The five senses: seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting
Do I need pictures or a spoken word for information processing? What is my preferred sensory system? Which sensory channel is rather underrepresented?

Motivational direction: Towards – away from
describes the starting point of motivation, i.e. whether the behaviour is rather determined by a “towards” (a goal) or by a “away” from (the old situation).

Information size: Overview – Detail
This metaprogram describes the order in which people prefer to absorb knowledge. First the essential details and examples and then the larger whole or rather the other way round, i.e. first an overview and then the details.

Evaluation: Differences – Similarities
If I take rather the differences was or is the focus rather on similarities. If two things are compared, what is the first thing to notice?

Time orientation: past, present, future
Is the focus of perception more in the past, present or future?

Drive: active – passive
Does someone actively approach something, act spontaneously and react immediately, or does he rather wait, observe, consider and then act only after a while or not at all?

Dreamer, Realist, Critic (Walt Disney)
The dreamer is the visionary, everything is possible. The realist is the implementer, sees the milestones and goals. The critic is the consultant who sees concerns and negative effects.

There are more filters. These include beliefs and feelings of thought such as euphoria, fear or love. The proverbs: The pink glasses or love or fear or anger makes blind, express these filters. Conclusions that arise from the interpretation loop through interpretation are also strong filters. These conclusions “glasses” – the stalled interpretation lead to the perception that certain information is no longer perceived and other information is colored.

Convictions and mental feelings:
– Euphoria, fear, love, formative experiences

Impressions, beliefs and moral concepts can be dissolved or changed in coaching by the methods of new imprinting/reimprinting or empowering.

Expectations -> (wish, task, goal)

Having expectations means waiting, because normally the other person does not know what expectation is addressed to them. That is why it is important to formulate expectations as wishes, tasks or goals.

Basic feelings that have arisen, for example, as a result of system law violations:
– Fear, grief, anger, love

Unresolved system law violations lead to basic feelings such as suffering, fear, grief and anger and create “glasses” with feelings of thought. These feelings are also strong filters like the mental feelings.

What happens to humans in the event of a system violation?

If someone is excluded, disrespected, unjust or pushed forward, there is a four-step process that happens to the injured person.

1. Basic feelings I: First an injured basic feeling I develops. Typical descriptions of injured basic feelings are stomach pains, muscles tense, soft knees, trembling, pressure in the stomach, hot, cold, tears shooting into the eyes, trembling, heart palpitations, etc. …

Depending on the severity of the injury, these feelings may be stronger or weaker. Almost everyone knows a not so strong feeling when someone pushes himself forward in traffic.

2. Basic feeling II: Shortly afterwards (often only one second later) the basic feeling II arises, namely anger or rage.

3. Thinking: Only after the basic feelings have developed does the person begin to think about the injury. It is interpreted and concluded depending on which “glasses” the person already wears.

4. Thinking feelings: This thinking and interpreting creates a feeling which I call thinking feelings. It is in direct interaction with thinking. These feelings of thinking are often described as follows: I feel ignored, not respected, it is unjust …

If this first violation of system law is not resolved, it will usually lead to a re-injury and escalate further. In the same way, the “spectacles” are always further embossed. If system law violations are present, the “glasses” – the fixed interpretation – cannot simply be resolved, but must be processed in parallel with the resolution of the system law violations.

SUMMARY: PROCEDURE IN COACHING / MEDIATION / SYSTEM EMPOWERING

– Communicating knowledge about the interpretation loop

– Communicate knowledge about the system laws and the impact of an SG violation.

– To provide knowledge on how to resolve system law violations.

– Present filters.

– Find out whether it is about beliefs or imprints with corresponding feelings of thought -> Empowering

– Find out if it’s about filters -> Make filters or metaprograms more flexible

– Find out whether it is about expectations -> uncovering expectations and transforming them into goals, wishes, demands

– Find out whether it is a question of system law violations with basic feelings and “glasses” with mental feelings shaped by them -> dissolve system law violations, update “glasses” in parallel.

SUCCESSFUL COMPANY SUCCESSION BASED ON A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

AS A SUCCESSFUL COMPANY SUCCESSION USING A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE: THE FOUNDER HAS SEPARATED FROM HIS WIFE INA BAD WAY, THE SON SUFFERS FROM THIS AND IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE OVER THE FAMILY COMPANY

Starting point:
A family succession threatens to fail.
The employees and the father (founder and owner) do not feel appreciated and excluded by the son. The employees are loyal to the old man and the founder and want to keep him and bulldoze the son out. The father cannot let go in such a situation and must stand up for the old. This inevitably leads to a fight between senior and junior.

Procedure – Solution:
Individual conversations with the father and then with the son.
1. Presentation of the system law level and the system laws.
2. Elaboration of the systemogram
3. Time / cause diagram
4. Presentation of the PowerCode, how system law violations are resolved.

The reason was that the father divorced his wife (mother of the son) because he met a new woman. He also excluded his first wife and talked bad about her.
The son also feels that he is not recognized and partly excluded. At the same time he carries anger in himself towards his father and the new wife.
This injury does not heal in time and so he excluded his father when he took over the company (as a negative compensation and to reduce his anger).

When both of them became aware of this dynamic, the father was given the task of re-establishing respectful contact with the mother in order to lift the exclusion.

PROCEDURE – SOLUTION ONE-ON-ONE SYSTEM EMPOWERING

For this purpose we had a coaching with the father. We looked for the point where things were good between him and his wife, which systemic law violations had occurred and how it then came to the separation. In doing so, he recognized what part was up to him and he could take responsibility and internally resolve systemic law violations with her. This not only changed his attitude towards his former wife but his anger decreased. He also recognized that the exclusion of his wife also means exclusion for his son, because he is half of the mother.

Afterwards I asked the father and his son to have a one-on-one conversation.

Procedure – Solution Two-way conversation System Empowering:
The father told the son about his inner work, how he resolved systemic law violations with his former wife and how he took responsibility for them. This greatly relieved the son.
The first system law violation between the father and son was revealed. The father acknowledged the violation that had occurred with the son.
The father could then tell the son from the bottom of his heart that it was not his intention and that he was sorry.
This reached the son!
The father then took back the anger of the son.

Thereafter, further injuries resulting from the first injury were resolved with both.

The relationship between the two changed and there was a rapprochement and slowly mutual respect and recognition developed.
The son no longer had to exclude his father and his merits in the company, but could and can appreciate the merits of the father.

This successful company succession had an immediate positive effect on the company and its employees!

SUCCESSFUL COMPANY SUCCESSION USING THE PRACTICASL EXAMPLE OF HALF-BROTHER

Starting point:
Starting point is the above practical example. In addition, the father and his new wife had a son, i.e. a half-brother to the first son.
The father designated both his sons as successors of his company. Now the older son excluded not only his father but also his half-brother. Because he was angry not only with his father and his stepmother but also with his half-brother.

Procedure – Solution:
The same as in example I.

When a solution was found between the father and his first son, a one-on-one conversation was held with the half-brother (system laws and systemogram were presented).
Afterwards there was a one-on-one conversation with the first son and the half-brother and later the father joined in. At this meeting all violations of the System Laws were resolved and there was also mutual recognition between the two brothers.

« Older Entries