So as not to threadjack the romance novel on the other thread - here is a quote from J that bears discussion:

quote:

The wayward, unlike me, may very well be so deeply in his or her own core hurts that each answer is given from a place of core hurt, rather than core value. In this moment, I question whether that is an ethical thing to do. P, consider the Dalai Lama's view on action without compassion. I don't know what to say about it... I just know that those answers may well come from a place of hate and fear and rage, and that their intent may be anything from deeply hurt to angry to consciously designed to harm. Difficult, difficult stuff.

Really, really good question. I need to think on it to be coherent, but the hair standing up on the back of my neck tells me you're right on.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Penny_SYMC,

I wish I had something coherent to say about this. Instead, I'll just give it a bump and say that I'd still like to talk about it.

Anyone else? Times when the situation was or was not compassionate, and you did or did not gain from the honesty of your partner?

I suspect most people who create communities or concepts or organizations probably don't put their creative thought processes out for everyone to see until they're more than just gelatinous brain jigglings.

But.... I've never been like most people. And.... the Village isn't like most places. Truly, it's not like anywhere else on the web or on the planet. You guys are pretty special. (Errr.... and I don't mean that in the short little school bus way, either...)

So. I've been thinking. J challenged me/us with the original question above. And it's a good one. A really good one. But there's even more that's floating around in my (frighteningly messy) head.

The Honesty Assignment

How We Make Decisions

Intervention Phase

PP feels good to me so that's not on the list

Negotiating

.
.
.
.
.
.

I did a workshop Sunday at TC Pagan Pride about ethics and decision making. It was two hours with the second hour being directed specifically at sexual ethics - but really - the object of decision making could be anything. (Sex just gets more attendess... )

Over and over as I do the Stosny related classes and as I dig deeper and deeper into the Dalai Lama's stuff it comes back to me that some (much?) of what we've created is in need of a deeper foundation.

Not that what we've done and worked with for the last several years is bad. It's not. All the things we do are really good things. But it's time, and I guess I said from the beginning that we would come to this place, it's time to deepen, expand, grow, evolve.

I am so struck by how this lesson of compassion and where it takes us changes the lens through which we view everything.

Earlier this year when I was in a chaotic place I re-read Patricia Evans' book about verbally abusive relationships. At that time it hit me so clearly that it is absolutely possible to say all the "right" or "correct" or "appropriate" words (think Honesty Assignment) to someone and still have them be abusive. It made clear so much of what I had experienced for so long. But, because her work comes from the perspective of the victim it tends to be about the power over dynamic of the perpetrator without understanding the core hurts, if you will, of the perpetrator and the internal pain that drives abuse.

So now, as I look at all this, I'm rethinking our roots - the foundations of what we do. Not the stuff in place - but the underpinnings. The internal healing stuff, the compassion and ethics, all of that needs to come first. I think.

SYMC has always been about compassion and caring. That's why we're so adamant about respect. This is taking that to a deeper level and looking at motivation and energy.

Thoughts?

P

I think because of the compassion and respect of SYMC the people here trust you and will follow you in any direction you take us.

Wait a minute.....isn't that how cults start?

quote:

The wayward, unlike me, may very well be so deeply in his or her own core hurts that each answer is given from a place of core hurt, rather than core value. In this moment, I question whether that is an ethical thing to do

So what *is* the compassionate thing to do for the WS? I think this is so where my H is. He is hurting so deeply from his CH's as well as from the pain the A has caused him and everyone around him. He isn't able to react out of anything but that pain.

I guess this goes along w/ the post I just made-- the chemical high of the A is starting to wear off, but he's still mired down in his CH's.

It seems everything I do-- no matter if they're complete opposites-- is the wrong thing. If I cry and show my emotions openly it's done to manipulate him. If I'm calm and able to think and speak, to him, it means I don't care anymore. He's not able to think outside of his own little CH bubble.

Does that mean he sees himself with no value? Or sees me with no value-- meaning not worth the time/effort it would take to get to a place of CV?

Very interesting. I just don't know what to do about it!

quote:

So what *is* the compassionate thing to do for the WS?

quote:

It seems everything I do-- no matter if they're complete opposites-- is the wrong thing. If I cry and show my emotions openly it's done to manipulate him. If I'm calm and able to think and speak, to him, it means I don't care anymore. He's not able to think outside of his own little CH bubble.

Some groundwork:
The theory of compassion/ethics that we're playing with right now is (as noted in a much earlier thread) one that comes to us from eastern philosophy. Western ideas tend to put the concept of ethics into a code of conduct so to speak - with do's and do nots. Not too unlike the CoC that you agreed to when you joined the Village or the more extensive CoC all formal staff/volunteers sign and agree to.

Eastern thought is a bit different. It places ethics more in the realm of a broader 'harm none' directive without black and white definitions of what that looks like.

This sort of definition and use of ethics, then, places a whole lot more responsibility on the individual than does a set of black and white laws. Ascribing to and living within this kind of mindset requires that you explore what 'harm' looks like - and that you do so from a place of discernment.... where you are able to make those decisions free of negative influences.

The foundation for this sort of ethics is compassion. Compassion requires that you put others' desire to seek happiness and avoid suffering on equal footing with your own.

And, of course, this requires a definition of happiness. In this sort of paradigm happiness is not transitory pleasure. It is not simply what feels good in the moment but rather the feeling of inner peace that comes from making wise and compassionate choices. In my workshop this weekend one of the attendees didn't like the phrase inner peace - not active enough for him. So some other words that we kicked around were contentment, fulfillment, satiation. We also talked about the concept of non contradictory joy - and the fact that we are all connected in a very real sense and that therefore my happiness is dependent on the happiness of others.

Soooo..... living compassionately requires that you make choices that put others' desire for inner peace and contentment (not even remotely close to a desire for some passing fancy) on the same footing as your desire for the same thing. Ditto with the passing fancy part.

The only way to get to the space where you can examine all that stuff and hope to come to an ethical/compassionate decision is to get reconnected to you. To the best person you are. To your intrinsic goodness. To the part of you that would not and could not intentionally cause harm to anyone else - much less someone you love.

This is what we do with the core value bank work. This is what we do in the Heart Meditation.

Only in that space can you know the answer to your question. In fact - only when you act from that space do you do so with compassion and ethics.

One of the things we touched on in the ethics class but that we didn't emphasize too much is the makeup of ethical choices. The three parts are: the consequences or outcome of the act, the actual act itself, and the mind/heartset of the person making the choice.

Consequences or outcomes are often out of our hands and not something we can control. That makes it the least important when deciding if an act is ethical/compassionate.

The nature of the act itself is necessary to take into account. Some things are by nature negative - killing, for example. But other things can be positive at one time and negative at another. So this too becomes less important in deciding whether an act is compassionate than the third criteria - state of the heart.

This brings us right back to the need to be in the place where you are well grounded and connected to your very best self. This is the state of heart where you are free of afflictive emotions - hatred, anger, fear, predjudice, anxiety, and, interestingly enough, love (as in romantic infatuation).

There are a whole lot of intellectual reasons and biochemical reasons for why being in no contact with your H is the best move. I can lay them all out for you. Probably have . But for you to know that it is the most compassionate/ethical choice requires that you find and connect to yourself. That you get really grounded in self compassion (not the same as self pity! ) and that you take a good hard look at where each of you is acting from afflictive states and how best to minimize that experience.

P

Motivation and energy... interesting.

I would suggest that you, Penny, and your board, have some common ideas that you wanted implemented here. Further though, I believe that each of us has our own personal ideas of what is "compassionate"... and our motivators and energies would (perhaps) vary.

So while there are guidelines (laws and rules) to our behavior here on SYMC and in society... some would disagree with the motivation and energy.

For example, when you wrote your prison thread, a few posters did not agree that prisoners should be afforded any special treatment -- up to and including compassionate care while incarcerated. Some may have felt that the prisoner, especially a child molester, murderer or rapist, should be thrown into a cell and left to rot. He (or she) no longer deserves respectful treatment of any kind.

Of course, the same could be said of OW and OM who break up a family... and I believe someone actually did mention that.

My personal motivation and energy is spent trying to mix compassion and ethics in a way that does not cause further harm. Sometimes it's difficult... like when a former friend calls and says her heart is broken because her 'boyfriend' went back to his wife - and thinks I will understand because I was once an OW... or when a co-worker bursts into tears and says she spent all her money on alcohol and now can't feed her baby... ethically, an argument could be made for a dose of tough love... but what would a person coming from a place of compassion do? Tangible help for the baby, of course ... but... would compassion be seen as enabling the poor choices and bad behavior?

I've always said that Tough Love must have the component of LOVE or it's just TOUGH. Can we truly love someone we don't know? I can see how we can use tough love techniques on our children, obviously, but what about adults? And should we? From a "It Takes A Village" space... all children~~ and I would argue~~ all living things are our responsibility at some level.

My final comment is about compassion for self. At what point is it MORE compassionate and ethical to protect YOURSELF from potential (real or imagined) harm? I personally struggle with this most of all, and in fact find myself shutting the door, slamming shut the window, and closing up the walls when I feel threatened. That is *not necessarily* the most compassionate choice, but it feels safe.

Lots to consider...

quote:

One of the things we touched on in the ethics class but that we didn't emphasize too much is the makeup of ethical choices. The three parts are: the consequences or outcome of the act, the actual act itself, and the mind/heartset of the person making the choice.

I'll preface this by saying I didn't take the ethics class. I bought the book, but haven't read it.

Who determines the consequences or outcome and can only the person making the decision really know their own mind/heartset? I'm thinking of difficult decisions made in relation to my STBXH, who I've got to assume (is this ever possible?... in 12-step programs we say "assuming makes an *** of U and ME") is making many/most decisions from his CH's. I believe (from things he's said) he thinks some/many of my decisions prove his contention that I'm selfish, unfeeling, and vindictive, which doesn't make them sound like "ethical" choices. Patricia Evans' book helped but it wasn't until I began NC (not PP because I ended contact with an ultimatum and activated divorce proceedings) and got clear of the negative messages and chaotic behavior (especially my own), that I got any sanity on this.

I hate to see people floundering in that murky, helpless place I was in and would do anything I could to help them out of it. It's so hard to stand by watching, whether it's my STBXH, who has hurt me every time I let down my guard, someone struggling with someone else's addiction issues, or a newcomer who just discovered their "best friend" is cheating on them. But, I know I can only do so much to "help" or my efforts turn into judgement and control.

I have a better sense of what's right for me, but not an explanation for it that works if you don't already get it. I remember feeling terribly frustrated at the help offered when I still believed "they just didn't understand" that my situation was "different"... PP is clear but the rest isn't.

Nyn:

quote:

I would suggest that you, Penny, and your board, have some common ideas that you wanted implemented here.

Uhmmm.... close, but not exactly. SYMC is much bigger than this Village. It's what I write, the presentations I do, the MFD activities/events and publicity that comes from those..... Most of what SYMC is happens outside the Village Gathering here.

But.

This is like the nesting place. Where like minded (or not so like minded as the case may be ) bring up thoughts and ideas and concepts and where those things get bounced around and picked apart and put back together again. A bit like an informal think tank. It's where I come (besides my dinner table and J's phone bill) to think and ponder and try out new stuff. And then those things go into the formal part of what makes up SYMC. Articles. Books. Workshops. How we present ourselves to the rest of the world. Things like the definitions of marriage and infidelity - how we address infidelity - how we resolve conflicts - all that kind of stuff.

quote:

Further though, I believe that each of us has our own personal ideas of what is "compassionate"... and our motivators and energies would (perhaps) vary.

Mmmmm... good point. Always a really good idea to define terms before getting too far into a conversation only to find out that you're talking about two entirely different things! I meant to revisit my prison thread but got caught up in other stuff the last couple of weeks.

By compassion I don't for a minute mean anything close to "being nice." If you remember, I Don't Do Nice. It's not in my genetic makeup.

By compassion for self I mean coming to an understanding that our intrinsic value is not affected by what others do or do not do and that only we can increase/heal our value or lovableness by acting in ways that add value. I don't believe we can decrease our value or lovableness (which I really don't think is a real word, BTW) beyond a certain baseline level but we can become totally disconnected from it and therefore act in ways that are horribly negative.

Compassion for others flows from that place of connection to self. It is the realization that all human beings by virtue of being human have value. And that that value entitles everyone to be treated with dignity and respect. Compassion for others means, further, understanding that when others behave in harmful ways that they do so from a place of disconnection to their value - or in Stosnyspeak - from a place of core hurts.

Remember the three levels of the emotional self -

What the world sees - which is the anger, resentment, etc. and the acts arising out of that.

What the person experiences is the next deeper layer - the core hurts

What is not seen but which lies beneath both those things is core value - or the intrinsic spark of humanity which we all have.

So, back to my original thought about definition - compassion isn't about the act as much as it is about the state of mind and heart. Seeing others' value even when they are disconnected from it and acting negatively. Compassionate acts are often those which exact consequences - consequences which arise out of the understanding of core hurts and the understanding that when we allow someone to cause harm to others we also allow them to cause harm to themselves. Compassion looks out for the best interests of everyone involved rather than looking for ways to punish or seek revenge.

quote:

I've always said that Tough Love must have the component of LOVE or it's just TOUGH.

Oh!! That is excellent! See that totally sums up the idea of compassionate mindset. If love is not in the equation then the choice is harsh - and according to the eastern philosophy of ethics - unethical.

quote:

Can we truly love someone we don't know? I can see how we can use tough love techniques on our children, obviously, but what about adults? And should we? From a "It Takes A Village" space... all children~~ and I would argue~~ all living things are our responsibility at some level.

Well, I dunno. I don't think we can have the same visceral attachment to people we don't know. But look at the outpouring of love for the hurricane victims. I think that's love of a different sort.

I think using the term "tough love" in respect to adults feels.... mmmm..... heavy handed. One of the things we talked about in regards to women in abusive relationships (if I can ramble for a moment) is the destructiveness of firing up a sense of anger within them. In the end, it creates guilt when they take action from a place of anger. A couple of reasons - first it can't be sustained. Second anger and the subsequent crash that follow it are a simply biological equation that measures energy - so if we fire up anger in someone in order to get him or her to do something we need to know that they will experience a subsequent crash that results in at least a mild depressive state. Kind of counter productive to helping someone get to a better place. And third - anger comes from a devalued place so when she's there she's not building her connection to self or her ability to make decisions in her best interests. Although the action that she takes in an angry place might be seen as the best choice her mindset isn't one that will support that choice long term.

Now..... hmmmmm..... where was I going with that......??

Oh. Yeah. Tough love. Uhmmmm..... so if we change the words (cuz words are powerful) from tough love in regards to adults to compassionate boundaries you get an entirely different sense. Compassionate boundaries are simply deciding what is and is not in your best interests and what you will and will not allow in your life/environment no matter how much you love and care for someone. It's protecting yourself from a place of valuing the self.

quote:

At what point is it MORE compassionate and ethical to protect YOURSELF from potential (real or imagined) harm? I personally struggle with this most of all, and in fact find myself shutting the door, slamming shut the window, and closing up the walls when I feel threatened.

It is always compassionate to protect yourself from harm. The question, though, is how do you decide what form that protection takes and how do you implement it? This is where, I think, it's so important to be connected to yourself and your value so you can be more certain that you are making decisions about the need for protection or how it manifests from a place that is calm and grounded rather than frantic and chaotic.

A personal thought about that - I mentioned on EJLH's thread that I have kids in trouble and that it's been very distressing for me. It's relatively serious trouble for one and more serious for the other. In that place of terror and pain I go immediately to unlovable. Mmmmm..... I think I go deeper than that worse than unloveable - not fit to exist on the planet. And then in that place of self blame and hatred I start thinking that there are things about my life that I just can't contemplate allowing to exist. In the past, I would have made really hasty (read: stupid!) decisions, made threats, acted really badly.

Knowing what I know now I really get that when I'm feeling that way I am very very disconnected from myself. And, more importantly, no matter how important it seems to take some personal action (not about the kids - I'm doing well with those actions) making those kinds of decisions right now would not get me to any place good.

Obviously if you are in immediate danger you need to protect yourself. But if you're feeling threatened and reacting in panic then maybe that's a signal to take a break and do those thins that reconnect you to your value. Get outside and look at something beautiful, enjoy art or music, connect with your community, connect with someone you love, connect with spirituality..... those kinds of things. And then when you feel like your feet are back on the ground decide if you still need to protect yourself and if so what that protection looks like.

P

LS - it's starting to storm here and I'm going to lose inet connection any minute (satellite). I'll be gone tomorrow am but I'll get back when I can!

P

I hope this discussion continues. I started to post last night, but my brain hadn't quite finished processing. Still hasn't.

Trailing bits that come to mind:

Thich Nhat Hanh teaches compassionate policework. Here's a link to a radio program about it:

[URL=Speaking of Faith: Brother Thay]http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/thichnhathanh/index.shtml[/URL]

There is also a passage in his book on anger that comes to mind. I don't have the book handy at the moment, but it's a story about a boy who is learning meditation and compassion at Plum Village. His sister is also there, and she falls and hurts herself at one point.

The boy is overwhelmed with feelings of anger and stress and comes close to running over to yell at her for being so stupid. Instead he does what he's been taught to do -- he walks and meditates and sits with his anger until he can b compassionate with it.

He learns a great deal about his family and why his father has been abusive to him in those few minutes while other people are cleaning up the scraped knee. He also avoids causing further harm because of his own emotional state, and when he does finally interact with his sister, is able to comfort instead of harming.

This, I think, is the essence of what we need to change in our approach. Exposure, for example, has to come from a place of compassion, and we need to get clear on that before proceeding.

The hard part is that the people who come to us usually have no practice at all in compassionate action. So we have difficult choices to make in terms of how we advise them to proceed without causing further harm; the chemical soup of anger and adrenaline and fight-or-flight is extraordinarily powerful. And sometimes there really are emergencies and though we must act with compassion, the person who's in the situation must simply act, no matter what their mindset. Tough stuff.

quote:

This, I think, is the essence of what we need to change in our approach. Exposure, for example, has to come from a place of compassion, and we need to get clear on that before proceeding.

The hard part is that the people who come to us usually have no practice at all in compassionate action. So we have difficult choices to make in terms of how we advise them to proceed without causing further harm; the chemical soup of anger and adrenaline and fight-or-flight is extraordinarily powerful. And sometimes there really are emergencies and though we must act with compassion, the person who's in the situation must simply act, no matter what their mindset. Tough stuff.

Yeahhhh..... that's exactly where I'm at. Not just with Intervention. Which, btw, bears looking at not just in terms of exposure/confrontation but more subtly in terms of the self improvement (for lack of a better phrase) stuff as well. That too, when done from a place that is frantic and manipulative will end up causing harm. But also with things like the Honesty Assignment and the How We Make Decisions.

As you know, J, cuz we've talked about it in bits and pieces I've moved away from the idea of Harley's POJA. Not so much the idea itself because the content of it is ethical and compassionate - but the idea of using it without first addressing core hurts. How We Make Decisions is a solution process - and solutions cannot be arrived at in a state of afflictive emotions.

Other things that come to mind are things like the question you posed that started this thread- what about stuff like full disclosure and accountability? How do we build this model of compassion and ethics into what we do with that?

I suspect you and I will agree that we (SYMC as an organization) are only beginning to explore this next step in our evolution and that there is a whole lot to talk about.

Heh. Is this what you meant when you said it (compassion) was going to filter down through everything we do and I responded with the comment about lasagna?

P

Well, I am reading what you've written, and I'm thinking to myself that this is SO BIG that it's almost indescribably difficult to implement.

In the case of a partner that is truly remorseful, I would expect that compassion (or at least a desire to act in a compassionate manner toward the betrayed spouse) would be a natural way to act. I know it was for me, as the betrayer. I held my (first)H when he cried and cried with him.

In the case of a partner who does NOT take responsibility for their actions, or worse yet, says that their actions were CAUSED BY the betraying spouse (I know a few of these, sadly), then there will be no compassion. It doesn't matter if we (collective, as in SYMC) get to them before they confess... if they TRULY do not take responsibility for the pain they've caused, there can BE no compassionate action. How can there be??

Anyway, I agree that compassion filters down into everything we do. That has certainly been the case for me. As I said before, this has changed my life.

quote:

In the case of a partner who does NOT take responsibility for their actions, or worse yet, says that their actions were CAUSED BY the betraying spouse (I know a few of these, sadly), then there will be no compassion. It doesn't matter if we (collective, as in SYMC) get to them before they confess... if they TRULY do not take responsibility for the pain they've caused, there can BE no compassionate action. How can there be??

I'm not sure I'm reading this as you meant it, so be patient with me a sec. Are you saying that someone who is stuck in that place of blame ro anger or resentment or simply acting in a negative way cannot make a compassionate decision?

Or

Are you saying that we as a community cannot behave compassionately towards that person?

Sorry for being dense.

P

Oh, you're not dense... I wasn't clear...

I'm saying the first thing... that someone in "that place" cannot (or perhaps will not) be able to come from a place of compassion.

The community, try as it might, can be as compassionate as humanly possible and also try to lead the betrayer (in this example) to make compassionate choices (with regard to disclosure)... but unless the betrayer is ready to make the leap from selfish to compassionate, it won't happen.

Gee whiz... now I'm confusing myself.

Yes, what J said is right on. Since the same actions can be done with compassion or vengeance, how do you respond in an emergency, physical or emotional, when the person isn't in a compassionate place at all and maybe can't even begin to work on compassion until there's been some kind of intervention? In Al-Anon we recommend "acting as-if" when we can't do it yet from the heart. One of the pages we read last night at a meeting on the topic of change talked about how the slogan, "just for today" could be misused to accept unacceptable behavior when we're afraid to make necessary changes - perfect example of how good advice can be used negatively when we're not emotionally ready. Maybe it's a process of choosing the best course to minimize further damage until more work on addressing core hurts can be done. And the choice to do that work is one that everyone isn't ready to make... then what?

quote:

And the choice to do that work is one that everyone isn't ready to make... then what?

If I've followed this (and believe me that's been a challenge! LOL ). Sometimes the compassionate act isn't "the nice thing". But it is "the better thing."

In the realm of A's-- is it "nice" to go into PP? or is it "compassionate"? No, it's not nice. But this isn't about being nice and smiling through the pain. It's about wanting to make the better choice to end the pain.

Now does that mean you'll get what you want? Nope. BUT compassion isn't about recieving, it's about giving someone they cannot give themselves.

quote:

Heh. Is this what you meant when you said it (compassion) was going to filter down through everything we do and I responded with the comment about lasagna?

Yep. It -all- changes when you add that. Hence the need to go read and listen to the source work about it. Gotta learn a whole lot more about compassion, I think. The Stosny stuff is great for our classes. The compassion stuff from the great religions (yes, including Christianity) needs a much deeper look than we've given it.

As soon as I wake up (in about three years), I'll get back to this.

Hmmm. More thoughts in my head. The clean sheets are never going to get put on my bed at this rate.

quote:

In Al-Anon we recommend "acting as-if" when we can't do it yet from the heart.

I like this. I also need to know how Thich Nhat Hanh teaches police to be compassionate. And how compassion is taught in the major world religions. Not to monks and nuns who can withdraw from the world to learn it, but how it's taught to everyday folks like you and me.

I think there are varying levels. Judaism teaches kids to follow the forms while they're learning the meaning. Other paths say you should understand what you're doing completely before you ever begin.

I lean toward the former. Hear, absorb, act doesn't have to be the only order. We can, for example, teach Protection Phase as protection from harm while working to bring about the shift into compassionate action.

We can teach intervention as the most compassionate approach to a difficult situation even while a betrayed partner is seething with rage.

We can clean up intervention and protection phase letters to demonstrate compassion in action.

There are lots of ways to teach compassion. We all know that the more compassionate the frame of mind, the less harm and the more beneficial the action will be. We can't wait for people to become boddhisatvas before they go into Protection Phase, though. So I think our goal has got to be to structure our own thoughts in the most compassionate way possible, consider and reconsider what we recommend in order to meet those high standards of compassion, and then work hard to bring the shift into compassion each time someone asks for our help.

Not easy, but hey. If we wanted the easy stuff, we would have signed up for raising teenagers or something.