Sponsee: I agree.
Sponsor: What would it mean if you didn’t agree?
When I am in trouble, I am looking at things wrong or I am doing things wrong. When I then ask for a new attitude or for direction on action, I am to adopt that attitude or follow that direction. If I happen to ‘agree’ that those are good ideas—based on a substantive analysis of the material—that is all well and good. But if I don’t agree, the non-agreement is being generated by the part of me that has caused the problem in the first place. That non-agreement is of no value. Therefore, the agreement is of no value, either: the right attitude and the right action are right, regardless of what I think or feel.
Furthermore, if adopting the new attitude or following the direction requires my agreement, I am still in charge, and the problem will never be solved: I will adopt only those attitudes that will not disturb or disrupt my ego, and I will take only those actions that will not disturb or disrupt my ego.
‘I agree’ tells me that the whole process is a charade to convince me that I’m solving the problem when I am not.