Dear All,
I am frankly saddened by the exit from our group of so seasoned,practiced and
gifted an intellect and practitioner as my friend and colleague, Dan Cohen.
Suffice it to say that what we call resistance ontologically, metaphysically,
epistemologically, or transferentially ,take your pick, is a process or state
that those respectful of the work might well be aware of. Since its all about
morphic resonance,
such suggestions as Dan is responding to are obvious in their limitations. "The
heart has a reason , the mind and resistance knows not." I do hope dan
reconsiders... all the most pensive...drj
On Sunday, January 01, 2006, at 03:42PM, Dan Booth Cohen <danbcohen@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<<Original Attached>>
For all who remain interested in the saga of Dan’s encounter with the San Francisco Anthroposophist, here is the final chapter.
I woke up this morning, New Year’s Day to the realization that I needed to extricate myself from this off-track event. My co-producer supplied the rationale when he sent to my In-Box a 1,500 word polemic on the topic of the laws of social exchange. The prose was dense. Here’s a 1% sample: “The basic form of such conversation (I call it “pure conversation”) is thus etheric unity, and the corresponding etheric levity, and astral relatedness or ontological (astral) force.”
When I scrolled to the bottom to find out where this was all going I read this: At the beginning of the event, if anyone in attendance has strong and principled objections to Constellations, “the focus should go to the one objecting, to the one attempting to exercise a veto, until either that person is convinced to go along with the program freely and willingly, or that person is shown to be out of step with everyone else.” If you knew my father, the late Henry Cohen, this statement would be particularly hilarious. His tribal name was, “One-Attempting-to-Exercise-a-Veto-Who-Will-NOT-be-Convinced.” He has a place in my heart, but I flee from designing an event to manifest his presence.
I responded: “I take it as a given that those who have not responded positively to the purpose of the program will exercise their veto by not attending. Those who are in the room, by their very presence, are voting to proceed as advertised. I have been clear that “debate and vote” is not an activity I am willing to engage in under these circumstances. That I even have to explain myself on this point leaves me flustered, as if I were arguing with you why you should not help yourself to the first slice of wedding cake.”
I’m withdrawing from the event and moving on. Thanks to all for your support and comments. They have served the essential purpose of Constellation Talk, which is to create a forum for facilitators to seek support, guidance and insight.
A healthy and fulfilling 2006 to everyone!
Thanks for all…
Dan
