Hi Steve,
Thanks for you reply!
No excuses at all, at least on my side. I dont think understanding is
about excusing. Each and everyone of the people involved hold a personal
responsibility. As I understand it, that is the key. The presence of
underling forces does not exempt responsibility. Hellinger has been very
clear about this and not only him. Being able to face and recognise our own
personal responsibilities is key and often a very difficult steps to give,
although it leads us to a state of dignity. Because of this, or as a
consequence - I dont really know this is a confusing realm and most
frequently understanding and excusing get mixed up.
Ive recently read The Tears of the Ancestor of Daan Van Kampemnhout,
where he develops his understandings on the different faces of of
guilt-responsibility recognition and its role as a main piece in the
resolution of victim and perpetrator dynamics. I found information and
views new to me as a person and contellator. Through this reading I got
closer to understating how personal responsibility is still a huge issue
for humanity. My personal synthesis, put short and easy, is that we still
dont know how to handle it, nor as individuals nor as groups.
This is where I try to remain focused. So (again), I have questions: Do I
have a role? If so, what is my role? Do I have a right here? If so, of what
reach? What is in my hands that can add to, help or facilitate a solution
in a situation? What are the possibilities right now? Still, I believe
there is an intrinsic difference between pointing the finger and
acknowledging the responsibility of another. And since I have checked once
and again that our way of looking makes a difference a real one, in the
sense it impacts reality this means that how we look upon a situation
also implies personal responsibility.
By the way, have you read that book? Daan also describes a beautiful model
of how the soul moves in the familiar, tribal, individual and universal
soul, which I found very useful. It has a lot to do with all of this
also...
Best wishes,
Betania
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Steve Vinay Gunther
<spirited@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
**
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]
