responsibility follow-up

[Peter Howie]

Dear Adam,

Beware of the following Australian humour.

You are entirely right Adam in proposing that we remain rational and 
thoughtful and reasonable in the realm of responsibility. Heck we could 
even invoke the Covey principle of circle of concern and circle of influence.

Humour finished, I couldn't keep going with it. I am warmed up however to 
the idea that words can inspire and it is rarely the mundane words that 
inspire but rather the impossible, the unlikely and the unreasonable - 
somewhat akin to noble but not quite so much. I do recall Moreno saying he 
was being unreasonable. But then again he expressed the thought that a 
purposeless world was unreasonable also. I haven't yet worked out the 
responsibility for the whole Universe from Moreno's point of view - that is 
way out there. However I can follow a religious way to get there - my 
spirit is one with the spirit of the universe and at some deep fundamental 
level I am connected with the creativity of the universe etc etc. But what 
I really liked was Moreno's assertion that I was responsible for everyone 
and everyone was responsible for me. Now that is a revolutionary doctrine. 
There ain't no religious mob that I have come across that would assert 
anything close to that. The nature of that reciprocal responsibility is 
both impossible to me and desirable to me. And at the same time it so out 
of reach.

Cheers again

Peter in Brisbane

At 08:34 PM 5/18/2008 -0500, Adam Blatner wrote:
>Thinking about this:
>     1. Moreno's claim we're responsible for the whole universe.
>     2. Peter's observation May 05: I was in a Non Violent Communication 
> (NVC) workshop yesterday - and they have the opposite belief - that each 
> person has absolutely no responsibility for anyone else - though I didn't 
> go deep enough to see whether this is an assertion that they want people 
> to take up or whether they actually believe it. It leads to a certain 
> type of intimacy and a certain type of isolation which I found 
> anti-Morenian. However interesting ways of using language were presented 
> - and of course they stopped at empathy rather than role reversal. But 
> you can see, Adam, where Moreno's dictum, wonderfully overblown as it 
> is  -  is a powerful antidote/contrary idea to that one.
>            Adam: This contrary assertion throws into contrast the ideal 
> of responsibility and reveals its problem:
>    There is a desire or willingness to participate in addressing this or 
> that problem---and communicating and following up on that desire.
>     There is a recognition of non-control, and an associate recognition 
> that one can not be "fully" responsible for that which is not fully in 
> his or her control.
>            So responsibility isn't something can be done "fully."
>
>        Rather, it is also a responsibility to recognize limitations of 
> what can be and/or should even be attempted to be controlled.
>            And sometimes the kindest, most politically wise thing to 
> recognize that one should not try to force, explain interminably, hector, 
> coerce, lecture, and in other ways try to get one's way in all cases. 
> (Much less declare war.)
>
>          Interesting point, addressing as I also do the seductiveness of 
> seemingly noble words.
>
>    Warmly, Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080519/3a6d8d84/attachment.html