Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    There seem to be two different situations you're asking about.
    One is just day to day living. ie "But what if I chose the wrong
    day?  What if, as George Carlin once said, "there was someone who 
    needed *just one more thing* to go wrong" to put them over the edge?"
    The other is on a larger scale, ie, to be "confrontive" or not. (I
    am interpreting this to mean "Should I confront this person with
    my feelings about such-and-such a situation if I know that they
    might be hurt by what I have to say?")          
                                         
    I think that each person has the responsibility to not intentionally
    hurt another, to not intentionally inflict harm or pain. This seems
    to work when you are talking about the day to day things. I mean,
    one shouldn't "carelessly utter that which would hurt another."
    However, I also believe that each person has a responsibility to 
    him/her self, to do what is right for him/her self. This comes into
    play (along with the above stated responsibility, of course) much more 
    when you are talking about things on a larger scale.
    
    The trick, I've found, is balancing these two responsibilities.
    So, when faced with the question of whether confrontiveness is likely
    to be the correct thing to do in any given situation, I guess we
    each have to decide whether speaking our mind will cause more pain 
    than the situation warrants. 
    
    I don't know of an easy formula (gee, and we engineers just love 
    formulas!) to apply to make this decision. I just try to make the
    best all-around decision each time I am faced with this type of
    situation.
                                
    I hope this makes sense.
    
    -Amy.
         

Meredith,

I know what you're feeling as I struggle with this a bunch.  I feel
a responsibility to others and *know* I have a responsibility to myself.
Sometimes I can be responsibile and condiser the other person without any
consequence to myself; those are the easy ones.  The tough ones come from
when I have to sacrifice something significant.  How do I determine when
the sacrifice outweighs the other's need or visa-versa?

Generally I do what my heart tells me at the time and live with the result.  
After the fact, I sometimes find that maybe I didn't give where I should
have or gave too much.

I know this must me one of my life's lessons because I keep attracting 
(bringing into my reality) people who provide the opportunity for me to 
balance this sense of responsibility to myself and to others.  Since it keeps
happening, I guess I haven't learned it yet...

I just try to keep in mind that when it comes to these decisions, there are
no mistakes.  Each decision is a step in the right direction and one day
I'll figure it out...

Terry

    This hits a home key with me too.  It has been something I have
    been working on for several years.  I do not understand why people
    have to do hurtful things, and beyond that, seem to "get away with
    it".  The latter statement is an illusion, I now find.  I do recognize
    that what appears is not *always* what it seems - and who is really
    getting away from what. (Instant Karma nowadays)  I too have struggled
    with my responsibility to the indivual and situation involved, still
    trying to maintain an overall sense of "love thy neighbor" attitude.
    (whew, that is a tough one)
    
    A particular dream really was a revelation for me.  I was in another
    land and saw terrible atrosities (sp?) going on among people.  Some
    of the actions were canibalistic in nature and I was outraged. 
    At some point I was brought in front of a panel of beings, all looking
    rather alike, no hair, white robes.  I was pleading for them to
    stop the activity, that it is wrong for people to consume one another.
    The panel speaker looked down at me and simply told me that it could
    not be wrong because the people did not know any better.  Then I
    when I asked how could I deal with these people when I *did* know
    better, and they told me "Hate the sin, not the sinner."
    
    This message has helped me with many many issues when I feel someone
    is doing something hurtful, on any level.  When I am able to take
    my anger out of it (and sometimes I really have to keep at it),
    and then simply present the statement without that anger, the statement
    is then not met with more anger and my words are heard more clearly.
    
    This takes all the judgement out of it for me.  On the other hand,
    if I do not react, I feel I am just as bad for letting it go on.
    (Then I tend to beat myself up for days with I should haves, I could
    haves)
    
    Certainly this is not a formula, but it has helped me over and over
    again and I present it for consideration.
    
    Dawna
    

    Excessive concern for someone else's reaction to our statements
    is called 'codependence'... a term much in vogue these days.
    
    Speak the truth as you know it, and take your chances.
    
    karl

    	Unfortunately many people refuse to take responsibility for what
    	they say, and when confronted with it either refuse to answer or 
    	deny they meant to be antagonistic.  Oftentimes I can handle it, 
    	other times it has doomed a friendship.  There are times we're 
    	emotionally unable to deal with certain behaviour patterns, and 
    	where our responsibility lies is not taking the chance that what 
    	we might say could push someone over the edge or cause distress.
    	I don't want THAT responsibility.
    
    	In my opinion, blatant honesty (which is the key to all of this, 
    	correct?) is caused by an immediate reaction, usually driven by 
    	a negative Ego factor.  Perhaps trying to be self-important or
    	display overcompensation for a lack of confidence or awareness.
    	Whereas if a waiting period occurs, one can usually (if desired) 
    	tap into a more positive area and temper either a brutal opinion 
    	or the desire to get involved.
    
    	This also allows a more pleasant reality to be created, probably
    	for both (all) people involved.  There's nothing wrong with a
    	little consideration!
    
    						   Carla
    

Re: .0

That was great.

I agree that people should not lie to others, but expressing what you
feel is "the truth" may not agree with the perceptions of others.  You can
express concern, uneasiness and/or disagreement with someone, but how you
present your opinion, and it may be nothing more than that, can be either
constructive or destructive.  In other words, you could call someone
lowlife scum, or express how you disagree with their general philosophy of
life.  Which one will they listen to?

If you are blunt, then you have said your peace and it's over with, at least 
for yourself.  But are you expressing your opinion to clear your conscience, 
or help the other person?  When you are blunt you can build up a wall of hate, 
hostilities, and even disbelief between you and whoever you're talking to/
about.  You can't communicate if there is a wall between people, and this wall 
can "protect" you from the other person's disagreeable opinion.

Putting up a wall between people is easy, to break down a wall is hard.  To
have a deep, meaningful discussion with someone is even harder.  It may be
easy to tell the truth, but it's hard to get people to listen to it.

Dave

Something I try to remember when dealing with what is the right thing to say
is, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it.".  Sometimes the truth can
be *used* to achieve selfish results.  When this is the case, it is clearly
not the optimum solution, and that's when the truth is better left unsaid.
If, however, the truth is given simply for the sake of truth what can be wrong?

As far as "pushing someone over the edge", that is always the choice of the
individual.  In fact, I feel that we're never pushed, rather we pull ourselves
into certain actions - it's a matter of choice (even if somewhat unconscious).
If, however, you want to look at is as pushing then the 'straw that broke the 
camel's back' was no more or no less responsible than the first on laid on 
it's hump.

Terry

    This is not an easy world to try and make a life in.  It's a heck
    of a good man who can interact with many different types of people,
    many of whom, these days, have stopped playing by the rules of
    civilization, and still have compassion and a desire to help a total
    stranger, without knowing whether or not this person would just
    as soon kill you as look at you.  Don't be too hard on yourself
    if you get weary sometimes, and don't expect yourself to always
    be emotionally strong enough for someone else to lean on.
    
    Often we can help another by, rather than laying out our interpretation
    of the "truth" of their problem from our objective point of view,
    guiding them to see what we're trying to say by asking questions,
    that will lead them to draw the same conclusion on their own, that
    we were going to come right out and tell them.  This type of guidance
    usually tends to hit home more effectively than objective advice,
    (not to say there's anything wrong with objective advice).
    
    DW

    Gee, I can't believe I used the word "civilization" in my reply
    in .9...one of my least favorite nouns.  What I ought to have said
    was something to the effect of "rules of human moral conduct".
    
    DW

    
    	Maybe we have the responsibility to be kind, when guiding someone
    toward "that which they need". It's certainly in how it's done;
    you can throw the facts in their face -or- you can lead them to
    it by suggesting possibilities, which they might not of derived on
    their own accord.                               
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    Although YCYOR, your personal reality overlaps to greater or lesser
    degrees with others. If, by your actions ( or re-actions ), you hurt
    someone then that is *your* responsibility ; how the other person sees
    it and reacts to it may be theirs, but the act was yours. 
    
    Therefore you are, and must accept that you are, responsible for any
    ripples that you cause to disturb the realities of others. 
    
    It is very easy to say "and if they can't handle it that's their
    problem" ( how often do you hear that ? ) but that, really, is just a
    cop-out. Maybe you should be saying "if they can't handle it, I
    shouldn't have done it". 

    
    Re -.? "Speak the truth as you know it" tends to imply that you have
    exclusive rights to the truth. Temper everything with compassion,
    especially where the "truth" can hurt.

    
    To balance the 'them or me' conflict effectively is difficult but not as
    difficult as people like to make out. When you help others you help
    yourself karmically for starters. And if that doesn't suit your personal
    belief system, I've also recently read ( can't remember where - Readers
    Digest ? anyone know ? ) of scientific evidence that suggests beneficial
    biological and psychological effects of benevolence ( surprise,
    surprise, another case of Western 'Science' proving the ancient wisdom
    of the East ). 

    It is further eased by the beginning of beliefs in re-incarnation ( no
    rush to make your millions  (8^)  ), and the visualization of yourself
    not as an independent egotistical entity but as one co-dependent ( yuk,
    what a word ) particle of existence. Further, if you subscribe to one of
    the many beliefs that involve an all-pervading Spirit ( whether you call
    it God / Buddha-nature / the Ether etc. ), it is easy to see that
    when you help someone else, you *are* helping yourself directly because
    part ( all ? ) of you is part of them... 
        

    All makes perfect sense to me...  (;^)
    
    Dave.

As I read the previous reply, I recalled something said in one of the Joseph
Cambell "Power of Myth" episodes.  It dealt with those times when people 
risk their lives to help or save the lifes of perfect strangers.  The act 
seems to contradict the idea of survival being our fundamental need.  
Cambell's explanation (based upon some research) was that in the fraction 
of the second before one risks their life for that of another they transcend 
into a metaphysical state and realize that the person in need and themselves 
are infact one and that in saving the individual (even though they may 
experience physical death) they are, infact, saving themselves.

Interesting hypothesis...

Terry

    
    
    RE: .14
    
    and somewhat along the same idea....
    
    a quote from Illusions by Richard Bach (if I remember correctly -
    please, someone let me know if I am incorrect)....
    
    "You teach best what you most need to learn".
    
    Carole

I have read replies with great interest.

The one that made me raise my eyebrows, was the short one.  The one that said 
that taking responsibility for another's feelings is codependency..."a term...
in vogue these days."  It's more than "in-vogue"; I, for one, am a codependent, 
and psychologists and psychiatrists are discovering that it is the mental 
problem of our generation.  It's not "vogue" to have the problem. It's a very 
real one, based upon our inability to effectively deal with adult situations 
because of what happened to us as children, when we came from dysfunctional 
homes.  I'm talking about the kind of home where beating/drunkenness/sexual
abuse/emotional neglect/abandonment, was standard.  One codependent behavior is 
to take responsibility for the problems of others; to think that I, the 
codependent, created these problems and/or can make them better by changing my 
behavior.

I do not take my responsibility that far (any more...).  However, I do believe 
some things mentioned in other replies;

It's not what you say, but how you say it...

If it's for a purely selfish motive and you mean to hurt the other, it is not 
right...

Constructive criticism, i.e., putting forth ideas in a positive way, when one 
feels the truth must be presented, is what I believe is the best way to get the 
job done.  Getting agitated because another is talking about problems that you 
don't want to hear, is no excuse to lash out or utter the kind of sentence that 
is going to "force the other to see the light, no matter what."  When one of 
our brothers comes to us and is vulnerable to us, to step on that with a 
careless remark is not right.  Now, if we are gentle in our response, and take 
care with what we say, the person might still feel hurt, but in a safe 
environment; a nurturing environment.  I think that if we care, it shows, even 
to someone who might not want to hear what we have to say, and our words will 
be better-received.

I have found a nurturing environment such as this, where any of us can talk 
about anything at all that bothers us, and yet we all validate one another's 
feelings; we all support each other; we offer criticism in a gentle and 
supportive manner.  And I can't help but think that if this happened 
everywhere, we would have a better world.

Love and Light
Meredith

Boy, this is a toughie.  It's something I've been dealing with for
    a looooong time.  There are sometimes situations that are going
    to result in someone getting hurt (for instance when one person
    wants out of a relationship and the other doesn't).  Now, if I'm
    the one who wants out, am I responsible for the bad feelings the
    other party experiences?  The conclusion I've come to is that as
    long as I treat the situation ethically and with integrity and as
    long as I treat the other person with love and compassion and be
    as open and honest as I can without being deliberately hurtful then
    I think my responsibility for their feelings ends there.  
    
    If I feel hurt by the actions or words of someone I think I have
    to take responsibility for my own feelings.  After all, no one can
    change or deal with those feelings but me.  Usually what I do is
    figure out 1) How am I feeling? 2)Was there any incident in the
    past that I'm associating this incident with? 3) Have I expressed
    my feelings about this to the person involved?  Now, when I get
    to the last step, again, I need to take reponsibility for my feelings.
    I can't accuse the other person on *making* me feel this way.  That
    gives up too much of my personal power.  "When you do this I feel
    this way" would be more appropriate.  Then an open discussion can
    take place.  Sometimes there just isn't a meeting of the minds in
    such situations and you've got to agree to disagree, but at least
    you've set realistic expectations if the situation ever comes up
    again.
    
    (BTW, I've been on the receiving end of the above example.  It wasn't
    handled well and everyone involved was hurt including some innocent
    bystanders.  It's taken years for all of us to work out of the mess
    and it's still going on.  However, I've chosen to feel good about
    where *I* am given that the situation exists.  Since I made that
    concious (sp?) decision I've begun to experience joy in my life
    again.)
    
    Hope this helps...
    
    Nanci
     

Nancy; that was great, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

While I have learned to take the responsibility for my own feelings, as you 
said "If I feel hurt by the actions or words of someone I think I have to take 
responsibility for my own feelings...I can't accuse the other person on 
*making* me feel this way.  That gives up too much of my personal power", I do 
not expect that others are going to also know this.  Therefore, if I have been 
as gentle as I can be, and if I have said my gentle piece in a constructive 
way, and the other person is angry at *me* or says that I have hurt them, then 
I do not take responsibility for their feelings.

Love and Light
Meredith

    Thanks, Meredith.  We're thinking along the same lines.
    
    Nanci