Very dear friends
Thank you for all your unique and precious contributions always.
In reading them, it has added to my becoming a fuller human being. Thank
you.
And so exciting to make oneself a walking laboratory.
The tight rope walk of life continues and this is as we all know the most
humbling.
Will we ever know everything, probably never but we each can know when we
are in tune or not with the greater whole and how different it can look for
another.
within all of love
Anutosh
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Carolyn Zahner <cpzahner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
**
Dear All,
Thank you all for this important thread. I am grateful to all of the
teachers on this forum. Dearest Anutosh, special thanks for your courage in
sharing your personal story!
My comments below are not directed at Woody Allen; nor are they directed
at the beautiful sharing that Anutosh offered. Rather, my comments are a
reflection and questions regarding the larger field that Eimear mentions
below.
As this thread was opening and being explored, I was very intrigued.
Preparing to leave for the North American Systemic Constellations
Intensive, as a faculty member, I was aware of how this discussion
dovetailed with my plans to present and explore the issues inherent to what
I call "The Hidden (or excluded) Field of Women." As Eimear so beautifully
writes, we may be called to recognize the ".complex human relationships
that include all the power dynamics, [have] awareness of whose perspectives
get internalised (i.e. mostly those of the more powerful) in issues of
consent, [be] more integrative of what is felt, seen, known in multiple
ways and resonant within the larger field." Perhaps the historical and
present disparity of socio/political/spiritual and economic power between
men and women cannot be ignored when exploring issues such as consent,
"love", and integrated beliefs of the power structure. Such exploration may
require moving into a larger field.
An expanded field that acknowledges the 5000 years of patriarchal power,
with non-judgment, may view issues of consent and expressed "love and
happiness" very differently. It may acknowledge history and include the
reality of the disenfranchised place of women in culture and how that
impacts issues of consent in women today; through both entanglements and
current cultural structures. It may acknowledge, and challenge, the
integrated belief system that women (and children called women), can only
find their inherent value and meaning by being "chosen" by the powerful or
desirable man. This belief system has strong roots in our past and solid
footing in our present. There are many women, who "love" and "consent" to
their abusers, pimps, etc out of the necessity to live. The larger field
may speak to issues of consent, not from a place of judging this person or
that person, but rather, with an expanded perception of power and its
correlation to one's ability to truly consent.
What happens to the woman who does not consent or who does not agree with
her parents' integrated beliefs of the power structure that shows up in the
Constellation Field as her Family Field? Is she silenced? Does she know to
stay in hiding even within the Constellation itself? The expanded field
might provide space and permission for her to honor her ancestors and
refuse to integrate the belief systems of the power structure. Perhaps a
more expanded field will reveal the universally indigenous source of power
from which one may truly consent or not.
With Gratitude,
Carolyn
Carolyn Zahner, MSW, LISW, Inc
513-697-0260
Private Practice, Integrative Psychotherapy
www.carolynzahner.com
Co-Founder, US Systemic Constellations Conferences & Education, Inc
www.USConstellations.com
From: eimear@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 10:41 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ConstellationTalk] Re: Woody Allen
"I think understanding has a place. And I think clear boundaries have a
place. Ah, but where and how do the two meet, thats my question to each of
you.."
"Beyond all the concepts of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field,
I will meet you there."
Hello to all of you.
I am new to the constellations community, meeting Anutosh for the first
time at the US Intensive last week. I am not new to the issues raised by
this conversation, after 35 years of relational psychotherapy practice with
children, adults, communities and cultures. Abuse of power, violation of
boundaries, systemic misogyny, racism and unconsciousness at multiple
levels, have been my 'field'. Systemic constellations' relative freedom
from orthodoxy and fundamentalisms, is very attractive. The work within an
ethical framework of respect, knowing you do not know, trusting the Larger
Field and/of loving kindness, intend and try to do no harm, appeals. Given
that and situations like Woody Allen's;
I see a difference between "judgement" and "discernment". Discernment is
trying to consider what is appropriate, and in balance, within the web of
the relational field in the moment. In me, it is less black and white than
judgement, more responsive to complex human relationships that include all
the power dynamics, awareness of whose perspectives get internalised (i.e.
mostly those of the more powerful) in issues of consent, more integrative
of what is felt, seen, known in multiple ways and resonnant within the
larger field. I wonder how much discernment was exercised by those in this
situation? I wonder too, where response abilities, lie.
So good to be able to explore such issues in depth and relative safety.
Delighted to join you. Earth's Blessings, Eimear
Eimear O'Neill PhD Website;http://www.eimearoneill.com University
Afiliationhttp://www.oise.utoronto.ca/tlc/ Community GroupsSpirit
Matters, Rekindling Spirit You Tube, Wildflowers Collective, A Spoonful of
Honey Intergenerational Storytelling Circles
--- On Fri, 8/3/12, Robert Grant <erebees@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Robert Grant <erebees@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Re: Woody Allen
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: Friday, August 3, 2012, 7:21 AM
Hello Steve and All,
I like
these stimulating discussions.
"And, I think if we are too dogmatic about a systemic view, we can move
away from individual responsibility and choice. Despite systemic
influences, we are in the end, choosing beings - viz Frankl. Surely
constellation work is not proposing that there is not really free will!"
I love the Columbus's egg story of how Christopher Columbus, having been
told that discovering the Americas was no great accomplishment, challenged
his critics to make an egg stand on its tip. After his challengers gave up,
Columbus did it himself by tapping the egg on the table so as to flatten
its tip.
So then, how to find the hidden balance between relative and absolute,
judgement and acknowledgement, free will and choicelessness?
"Sure, if Woody or Soon-yi, or Mia, came to do a constellation, I would put
on my systemic hat, to see what is revealed, for the purpose
of
transformation."
Can we see a clue here? Or maybe even a trap, a forgetting something really
close. On some significant level I keep leaving my feelings out of the
equation. My focus is on the others yet reality is revealed in what I feel.
"I think understanding has a place. And I think clear boundaries have a
place. Ah, but where and how do the two meet, that is my question to each
of you."
In me of course. In me. In the way I feel.
What do I feel reading Steve as he is struggling with a conundrum, being
pulled between judgement and the systemic view?
I feel comfortable, distant and safe. I feel he knows yet does not dare to
know. The words of Nisargadatta are playing in my mind - "Then all schools
are given up, all effort ceases; in solitude and darkness the vast step is
made which ends ignorance and fear forever."
Sometimes things find me that
I do not want - so boundaries appear,
judgement appears, anger appears, blame appears, individual responsibility
and choice appear and me slips out of the picture.
Sometimes there are no questions and no answers without me, peace finds me,
words do not seem to come and silence appears.
Best wishes,
Robert
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Steve Vinay Gunther
<spirited@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
**breadth - looking at
Hey all
I really appreciate hearing all the responses and views. Its given me a
lot more to think about.
One problem I have is with a dynamic thats being expressed -
understandably in a constellation group - regarding judgement vs
acknowledgement.
The great strength of the constellation work is its
the bigger picture, the cultural, family, biological forces organisingthe
behaviour of a family or individual. We can see the profoundview.
interconnectedness, and understand things which appear to be black and
white (right and wrong) from a much more complex and systemic point of
level.
That view, taken more broadly, takes us into the spiritual very easily,
the domain where things just simply 'are', and everyone and everything is
profoundly connected.
Thats a beautiful perspective, and unarguably true at the most basic
thinking
And, theres a classic error which occurs in the thinking related to just
about any kind of spiritual philosophy, which is to apply systemic
too absolutely.look at it, true, but if we dont
In the relative world, there is up and down, ethical and unethical, pain
and pleasure. It all depends which way you
also reference that point of view, we get a kind of moral relativismwhich
can be just as dangerous as ignoring the systemic facts of correspondencemoments
and complexity.
I am not an advocate for reductionism.
And, I think that some of the comments about judgement are making this
kind of error I am speaking of.
The human mind depends on judgement to orient in the world. We can indeed
move to a more synthetic way of looking at things, but its only at
(as a gift) that our judgement gets suspended. Theres nothingfundamentally
wrong with maps of any sort, as long as you dont mistake them forreality.
relationship. But judgement can also
So I disagree with some of the comments about moving beyond judgement.
Its true, judgement generally results in condemnation, shaming, and all
the multiple things which dont work in
be used benevolently. I make many judgements, moment by moment, inwhat
facilitating a constellation; although I am flexible and responsive to
occurs, those judgement are useful guides. They are based on myare
understanding of systemic principles, my own experience, what the reps
saying...etc. But they are indeed judgements.influences,
Perhaps people are talking more specifically about negative judgements,
which are used to put others in the bad guy category. Its true, systemics
helps us step away from that kind of linear blame.
And, I think if we are too dogmatic about a systemic view, we can move
away from individual responsiblity and choice. Despite systemic
we are in the end, choosing beings - viz Frankl. Surely constellationwork
is not proposing that theres not really free will!think its dangerous to simply sweep away Allen's actions with terms
So I
such as 'love', to excuse it somehow because Soon-Yi has unknown loyaltyput
binds, or to compare it with a relationship between two people 10 years
apart.
Sure, if Woody or Soon-yi, or Mia, came to do a constellation, I would
on my systemic hat, to see what is revealed, for the purpose ofof
transformation.
But none of them seem to have evidenced that interest. And no, I am not
suggesting we try to constellate them to find out whats going on.
I am more interested in the interface between systemic understanding and
the knowledge that - plain and simple - a man (who is a public figure) 35
years senior to a 15 year old, who he knew as an adoptee since the start
her pubescence is a relationship which is questionable in terms of theresemblance to what we socially define as abuse. I
power dynamics, and the
would not imagine that anyone on this list would disagree with laws thatfrom
forbid sexual abuse of all forms. Thats a strong and essential social
judgement, which sets a social standard.
We can be semantic and say cause she was 15 at the time its not really
abuse. Ok, its not abuse, but its not just a kind of systemically neutral
situation either. At times like this, cant non-judgement be a cop out
making it clear socially what is ok? I am asking these questions, notok.
didactically, but in a searching/challenging kind of a way.
On an oblique but related note - the recent banning of several olympic
atheletes for racist tweets. These are public figures, who have power and
influence by virtue of their position. And clear judgements are made, and
clear actions taken, to signal what is not
of
So why would we apply this to Woody's actions, as a very public filmaker,
about matters of relationship, family and sexuality?
I think understanding has a place. And I think clear boundaries have a
place. Ah, but where and how do the two meet, thats my question to each
you..
Vinay
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
