responsibility follow-up

[Peter Parkinson]

Adolf Hitler, George Bush and the Generals of Burma are not responsible for
follow up. Shall we join the bunch?

Peter P

Aoteoraoa New Zealand


On 19/05/08 10:44 PM, "Peter Howie" <peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>
wrote:

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080520/5168c18f/attachment.html