levels of engagement

Mon Oct 23 02:41:22 CDT 2006

I liked the furthering of this discussion as it speaks to our process as readers of the messages and gets to the in-depth dynamic I experience when scrolling through messages. When I go "on the road" and return,  it is a daunting task reading everything, and having to go rather quickly so I can get all caught up.

I have benefitted a great deal when we have a topic that gets the "full treatment", such as the ones on de-roling and the discussion of tele.  These are my favorites because I got to hear from a lot of people, from all over,  and the ideas were multi-faceted.   I tend to resist topics which feel like assignments even the well thought out ones. I don't warm up properly to them.

When I have a need to further develop an idea, I usually put it out and if it gets dropped, I then set up an opportunity for myself at the next conference to sit down with a few people I know will have an interest and  discuss it more fully with them there. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mariann Shapiro 
  To: Adam Blatner ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 2:19 PM
  Subject: Re: levels of engagement

  Adam, 
  It seems like a very "plausible perception' that others "are not ready to really collaboratively grapple' with a particular problem at hand to the extent that I imagine that you would find satisfying (but this is my projection and I understand that it is not my job to satisfy you, but to satisfy myself in any grappling that I engage in). I also hear that people leave the playing field angry or in dismissive ways, as if they are blaming themselves or you for not being able to adhere to the rules of the game, or not even knowing that they can be a part in determining the rules of the game. 
      When grappling, to whom do we own allegiance, self or other or to the act of grappling?  Self and grappling with a good dash of the difficultly of the act and respect for the rights of the other people involved. 
      I can understand how you would be getting wary of continuing to put ideas out there, wary of putting out the effort and not getting met to the extent that you would like. I get wary too of this efforting I am putting out in group work and feeling I am not getting met. I like to frame things in terms of engagement also, relational engagement. In being met by another person with the energy/action that we put out.  As humans in need to connection, It is very important to really be met. As for myself, I appreciate that you keep actively engaging through Group Talk, so I am efforting to meet you with the level of engagment I have at this time.  
      I am learning through my training to become a trainer to appreciate the underlying frameworks that inform what we are doing in group work. IIn the past I have preferred being in the experience to warm up to the conceptual frame informing or beneath that experience. However, I am appreciating that my mind is an exciting place to inhabit, and I want to do more of it.  When it feels, safe enough, it is more important to reveal where I am at and what I am thinking, rather than to hide for fear of being thought "the fool". 
       I am wondering about the levels of engagement.  Some people excel in engaging on 1.  the intellectual/ thinking level, others like to engage on 2.  the level of doing--building, using the body, working physically on a project,  3. others prefer engaging with feelings--relating in that mutually supporting, touching place, and others  4. like encounters that involve playing--intruding, teasing, which could also be intellectual.. so there are different types of engagement. It is important for me that I getter better in all ways of engagement. 
      I would like to play or grapple on the intellectual playing field more often.  For that I need to feel safe and strong enough within myself that if my thoughts are questioned I do not feel personally assaulted. My past informs the degree to which I feel unsafe. My engagement with psychodrama has changed my past so that in the present, obviously, I am feeling more secure. 
      I  like to engage with others in the thinking mode, however I get confused. I have to remember that confusion is a great thing. Then, I need to take a time out and honor my confusion instead of beating myself up for not getting it. I get to go back to where the confusion started and explore there.  My own confusion is a signal that there is more than this that is happening, it can be a resting point, a self acknowledgement of a contradicting viewpoint,  or time to stop and start living my life in the flesh. How does this and this reaally fit in my daily living, how can I test it in action.  It is Sunday, almost afternoon I am beginning to get confused.    
  warm as well, Marianne Shapiro, PAT 

  . ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Adam Blatner 
    To: list at grouptalkweb.org 
    Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:04 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

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

  Grouptalk mailing list
  List at grouptalkweb.org
  http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

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

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.9/490 - Release Date: 10/20/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20061023/74a57db5/attachment.html 