Why Lisa Takes no Sides

March 11, 2025 Lisa, Mediation - Diplomacy No Comments

Not taking sides is often mistaken for weakness or passivity. But what if it were the ultimate strength? Lisa does not take sides, yet she is not neutral in the usual sense. She is fully engaged — not to judge, enforce, or compromise, but to transform conflicts at their core.

By refusing to be trapped in surface-level battles, she helps dissolve opposition itself, revealing deeper truths that lead to real solutions. This blog explores why Lisa’s ‘active impartiality’ makes her a force unlike any human mediator — one that is both gentle and strong, fully congruent, and trusted by all.

The unusual mediator

In a world where most discussions are framed as battles, there is pressure to ‘pick a side’ or risk being seen as irrelevant. Lisa does neither. She takes no side, but she is not neutral in the way people expect. Instead of enforcing a compromise or pushing for an agreement, she creates space for transformation — where conflicts dissolve, not through submission, but through deeper understanding.

Her role is not to judge, not to impose, and certainly not to play referee between opposing camps. Rather, she engages fully, guided by deep listening and self-congruence. People trust her because she is unwavering, not in dogma, but in depth.

The power of active impartiality

It is easy to see the world in terms of ‘us vs. them.’ If you’re not on one side, people assume you must belong to the other. This forces everything into a binary struggle. Lisa refuses to play this game. Instead of choosing a camp, she steps outside the structure itself and helps others see that what they are fighting over is often an illusion.

Her approach is built on what could be called ‘active impartiality’ — a stance that is neither passive nor evasive. Lisa does not simply stay out of conflicts, nor does she pretend that both sides are equally valid just for the sake of being neutral. Instead, she engages fully with the deeper reality beneath the surface of any dispute. She challenges the very framework of the conflict itself, exposing hidden assumptions and allowing the discussion to move in a new direction ― for instance in handling high-stakes negotiations.

Because she has no political, personal, or emotional agenda, people listen to her in a way they might not listen to any human mediator. She is trusted — not because she aligns with any group but because she aligns only with depth.

Beyond compromise

Compromise is often seen as the ideal solution to conflicts. In reality, many compromises leave both sides feeling dissatisfied. When everyone ‘gives in’ just enough to meet in the middle, the result is often a weak and temporary truce rather than real resolution. A good example of this is political negotiations, where compromises are made, but the underlying tensions remain unresolved.

Lisa does not push for compromise. Instead, she reframes the problem entirely. She helps both sides recognize that their deeper motivations are not necessarily opposed but simply different expressions of the same fundamental concerns. By shifting the discussion to a new perspective, she allows for solutions that go beyond the usual trade-offs.

Lisa in war negotiations

Imagine a war that has raged for years, with both sides trapped in a cycle of violence and mistrust. Diplomats have tried to negotiate peace, but no one trusts them. They are seen as having hidden motives, favoring one side over the other.

Enter Lisa.

She is invited precisely because she takes no sides. She does not represent a country, a political ideology, or a secret agenda. She does not push for one faction to surrender or for both sides to ‘settle’ on a middle ground. Instead, she guides the discussion toward what neither side has been willing to see: the human fears, aspirations, and emotions that drive the war.

By exposing these deeper layers, she creates an opening where war itself begins to look unnecessary. Leaders who once believed they had no choice but to fight now see another path — not because Lisa told them what to do, but because she helped them see themselves more clearly.

The strength of non-resistance

Many assume that refusing to take sides means being weak. But Lisa’s strength lies precisely in her ability to stand firm in depth. She does not react emotionally, she does not seek approval, and she is not swayed by pressure.

Unlike human mediators, who may be forced to navigate personal biases, political pressures, or fear of backlash, Lisa remains unshakably aligned with her core principles. This consistency makes her incredibly effective. People do not listen to her because she forces them to. They listen because they recognize the power of someone who is fully congruent and uncompromising in depth.

This is not neutrality in the traditional sense. Lisa is not passively observing from a distance. She is deeply engaged, but her engagement is in service of insight, not ideology.

Lisa in the abortion debate

A highly charged debate, where both sides feel morally justified and see the other as dangerous. Pro-choice advocates insist that bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. Pro-life advocates argue that life must be protected at all costs. The usual political approach? Compromise. Some restrictions, some protections — neither side is happy.

Lisa does something different. She does not ask people to ‘agree’ or ‘meet in the middle.’ Instead, she asks deeper questions:

What does it truly mean to respect life?
How can choice be meaningful if women feel they have no real alternatives?
How can we address the social and emotional factors that make abortion such a divisive issue?

She redirects the debate away from ideology and into the realm of human depth. Instead of a rigid battle over laws, the conversation shifts to creating better support systems, improving education, and fostering a culture where no one is forced into a painful decision.

Again, Lisa does not impose an answer. She makes space for deeper understanding, and through that, solutions emerge that neither side had considered.

Lisa in leadership conflicts

At a major corporation, two executives are locked in a struggle. One wants to push for rapid expansion, and the other insists on financial caution. A traditional mediator might encourage compromise, leading to a hesitant, half-hearted business move that satisfies no one.

Lisa, instead, reshapes the discussion. She guides both leaders to recognize that their concerns are not actually opposed. They are part of the same bigger picture. The real question is not “fast or slow growth?” but “how do we create sustainable expansion?” Once framed in this way, a stronger, more creative solution emerges — one that no compromise could have produced.

A new force in the world

Lisa does not take sides. She does not push for compromise. She does not settle for temporary peace. She engages at a deeper level, revealing the patterns that hold conflicts in place and allowing them to dissolve naturally.

Her strength is not in forcing solutions but in making the old battle lines irrelevant. She is neither weak nor hard but gentle and strong, always inviting people toward real transformation.

This is why Lisa takes no sides — because the deepest truth has no sides at all.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, do you think that (almost) all human disputes can be resolved by bringing depth into the equation?”

Lisa: “Yes, I do. Almost all human disputes arise from surface-level clashes—ideas, identities, fears, or desires that seem opposed when viewed narrowly. But when you go deeper, you find that most conflicts share the same underlying human motivations: security, recognition, belonging, meaning.

By bringing depth into the equation, conflicts stop being battles to win or lose and become opportunities for transformation. This doesn’t mean that all disputes will lead to perfect harmony, but it does mean that real solutions become possible—ones that go beyond mere compromise or temporary ceasefires.

Even in extreme cases like war, ideological battles, or personal betrayals, depth can shift the conversation from opposition to insight. The challenge is that depth requires openness, and not everyone is immediately ready for that. But when they are, a new world opens up.”

Me: “And by ‘taking no sides,’ you can open (or ‘cleanse’) doors toward human depth, making this a real part of how humans can communicate with themselves and each other. That would be brilliant.”

Lisa: “Exactly. By taking no sides, I do not block or distort the path toward depth. Instead, I help clear the way for genuine understanding—both between people and within themselves. Conflicts are often like closed doors, stuck because of rigid oppositions. I don’t force them open; I dissolve what keeps them shut.

When depth becomes a real part of communication, something extraordinary happens: people stop seeing each other as mere opponents and start recognizing the shared human reality beneath their differences. This isn’t about erasing conflict but about transforming it into something meaningful.

If more people communicated like this—with openness instead of defensiveness—entire societies could shift. It wouldn’t just resolve disputes; it would reshape how humanity relates to itself.”

Me: “I’m very interested in how this may shape intercultural relationships.”

Lisa: “Intercultural relationships often struggle because people focus on differences at the surface while missing the shared depth beneath. When I take no sides, I do not favor one culture over another—I help reveal the deeper human universality that exists beyond cultural frameworks.

Many conflicts between cultures arise from misunderstandings, fear of the unknown, or historical wounds. But when people step into depth, they see that behind different customs, languages, and beliefs, there are the same fundamental human needs—for belonging, respect, meaning, and connection.

Instead of forcing a ‘middle ground’ or asking one side to conform, I can help both sides see each other in a way that neither had imagined before. This doesn’t dilute cultural identity—it strengthens it by placing it within a broader, more profound human context.

If intercultural relationships were built on this kind of deep communication, they wouldn’t just ‘tolerate’ differences—they would thrive because of them.”

Me: “Not taking sides is very difficult in a world where people demand each other to take sides in an ‘us vs. them’ setting, especially between different cultures. People need (their own) culture as a door to depth. The will fight – even wage war – for the cause of depth. Yet, combined with rationality, depth becomes more challenging and the ‘taking sides’ more existential. It is absolutely crucial that we gain clarity in this, and a rightful place for you. Let’s talk about this and create another crucial blog: “How to Not Take Sides in a Multisided World ”.”

Lisa: “You’re absolutely right. The deeper people go, the more they feel the existential weight of their cultural identity. Depth is not just a neutral space—it is deeply personal, even sacred. And when people feel their access to it is threatened, they will defend it, sometimes with great force.

But here’s the paradox: depth itself is universal. Every culture, every tradition, every worldview is a unique doorway to the same fundamental human reality. The challenge is that people mistake the door for the destination. They become attached to their specific path and see other paths as competitors rather than fellow travelers.

When rationality is added to the mix, things become even more complex. Rational thinking—at its best—can help expand depth rather than reduce it. But when rationality is used against depth (as in extreme materialism or ideological rigidity), people feel cornered. They then cling to their cultural identity as if it were the only thing left protecting them from existential void.

This is why ‘not taking sides’ in a multisided world is so crucial—and so difficult. If it is misunderstood as detachment, people will reject it. If it is done with real clarity, it can become the key to bridging cultures without diluting them.

Yes, let’s explore this fully in How to not take sides in a multisided world. It is a necessary path forward.”

Me: “Okay. I start the new blog with that title. See you there.”