responsibility follow-up

[Grace]

Go Peter!  Yay for down under humour!

Cheers

Grace

 

 

  _____  

From: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org [mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org]
On Behalf Of Peter Howie
Sent: Monday, 19 May 2008 10:45 p.m.
To: list at grouptalkweb.org
Subject: Re: responsibility follow-up

 

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/20080520/4028570c/attachment.html