levels of engagement

[HV Psychodrama]

Dear Adam,
For me, personally, it is a combination of how interested I am in the topic, and how much time and energy I have in the moment. So I may be actively engaged for a while, and then have to disengage because life and work takes precedence.
Love, Rebecca
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adam Blatner 
  To: list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:04 PM
  Subject: levels of engagement


  Here's an interesting recent contemplation:
       There are grades of intensity and interest in engagement. An extension of tele into action.
         How much do you want to discuss this or that point? 
       Let us assume it's me, trying to engage passionately and with intellectual rigor, not really trying to win or lose, or be right, nor with any fear of being corrected or wrong, yet still inclined to engage at the level of semantic analysis, looking at words, logical examination, etc.
          and assume that the other person can take a variety of other stances:
       Stay with me, wrestle, not to win/lose, but to really thrash out an idea and perhaps discover a creative synthesis, a dialectical solution. To meet me criticism with criticism, rebuttal with rebuttal, and not infrequently go me one better, raising an objection or introducing a perspective that hadn't occurred to me. There are a few who do this.
              And we realize we are trying to build a better model or consensus, a more creative formulation.

     There are others who seem, on reflection to be willing to stay with me for a few rounds, but then they tire of it--it's not worth the effort. It may be they're just not all that interested. It may be also or instead, they're not ready to exercise their critical abilities, or for any reason, able to do so.   
         This intermediary category is important for reasons to be examined below.
                The analogy to ping-pong may be fair, as might be an analogy to playing role-playing Dungeons & Dragons-type games where the "power" of different players is finely calibrated. Criteria for calibration of status may be equally complex in assessing the rank ordering of football teams. Number of wins /losses isn't enough, it's also who you win or lose against and other issues.

        Some are not even inclined to engage at this level. Now it should be recognized that this is fine, okay. It's a specialized game, philosophy is, and there's no implication that everyone should play it. 

       The problem is that there are temptations to devalue those who do play it as ivory-tower intellectuals, unrealistic scholastic types, competitive, ego-ridden, overly abstract, pedantic, and other terms. Occasionally, some of those criticisms are partly fair, but more often, they are simply the way folks who don't want to play a certain way put down others who do...

        There is small talk, and there is middle talk, where people seem to be discussing, but the level of investigation seems to operate at a level of live-and-let-live. Opinions are offered on both sides, but then there's a hidden assumption that one's deeper assumptions will not be challenged. Perhaps it takes a bit of nerve to admit that this is all one is ready to do for certain topics.

     The other problem comes at the aforementioned in-between level, where person says, in effect, yes, I want to discuss it, but when the discussion gets more complex, feels awkward, maybe cheated, betrayed, manipulated--who knows what. A few rise to the challenge and can do so successfully. Some cannot. The point is to back out gracefully--though again what happens frequently is that the one who doesn't want the engagement to get too technical, who affirmed they wanted to discuss it, cannot even clearly recognize what s/he is doing and feels angry with the person who wants to play at a level that's more complex.

        I suspect that there is a need to rate levels of commitment or engagement, vaguely similar to levels of self-assertion or anger that I write about on my website. 

       How seriously and how intensively do you want to play, and what level of experience do you bring to the game--such elements are common themes to be reckoned with in many social situations, game situations. Do we need to give handicaps? I'm not sure that such elements can transfer well to philosophy.

      In part, this contemplation was triggered by a friend's story: When he was around 22 in seminary, he responded to a complex ethical conundrum with an answer that was dismissed by the faculty, ignored. The teacher wouldn't even tell him why his suggested alternative solution was wrong. This disconnecting, discounting, has stayed with my friend for over 60 years as a perplexing problem. 

     So I am considering the field that I call social resonance, the dynamics thereof, which include performance, mob psychology, bonding, transactions for play and engagement, conflict resolution, and of course tele and sociometry. 

      A practical implication: If I bring up a topic for discussion, I am becoming more wary about how much the people who discuss back with me want to really pursue a more careful examination of the problem. It seems to me that some claim to want to discuss, but are not ready to really collaboratively grapple with the problem at hand. Is this a plausible perception and formulation? 

         Warmly, Adam Blatner


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Grouptalk mailing list
  List at grouptalkweb.org
  http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20061018/b57b489d/attachment.html