Hi Steve.
I'm sorry. I don't understand.
But, for what you choose to see, or try to know/view, the complecity of
situation and not, simply, the easy?
I Already answer about this.
But we can already to search for, what we "need" to find.
But there's not the same thing.
does not?
embrace.
2012/8/2 Steve Vinay Gunther <spirited@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
**
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 breadth - looking at
the bigger picture, the cultural, family, biological forces organising the
behaviour of a family or individual. We can see the profound
interconnectedness, and understand things which appear to be black and
white (right and wrong) from a much more complex and systemic point of view.
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 level.
And, theres a classic error which occurs in the thinking related to just
about any kind of spiritual philosophy, which is to apply systemic thinking
too absolutely.
In the relative world, there is up and down, ethical and unethical, pain
and pleasure. It all depends which way you look at it, true, but if we dont
also reference that point of view, we get a kind of moral relativism which
can be just as dangerous as ignoring the systemic facts of correspondence
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 moments
(as a gift) that our judgement gets suspended. Theres nothing fundamentally
wrong with maps of any sort, as long as you dont mistake them for reality.
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 relationship. But judgement can also
be used benevolently. I make many judgements, moment by moment, in
facilitating a constellation; although I am flexible and responsive to what
occurs, those judgement are useful guides. They are based on my
understanding of systemic principles, my own experience, what the reps are
saying...etc. But they are indeed judgements.
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 influences,
we are in the end, choosing beings - viz Frankl. Surely constellation work
is not proposing that theres not really free will!
So I think its dangerous to simply sweep away Allen's actions with terms
such as 'love', to excuse it somehow because Soon-Yi has unknown loyalty
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 put
on my systemic hat, to see what is revealed, for the purpose of
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 of
her pubescence is a relationship which is questionable in terms of the
power dynamics, and the resemblance to what we socially define as abuse. I
would not imagine that anyone on this list would disagree with laws that
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 from
making it clear socially what is ok? I am asking these questions, not
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 ok.
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 of
you..
Vinay
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
