Dear Dan,
Interesting thought.
I suppose that the Baby's response would depend on how the mother/
father was "looking" at it.
If she/he was in shock and stress and panic and denial, then that
might cause an entanglement, since the baby as person would have been
excluded. Committing murder in a state of shock would also make it
very difficult for the mother/father to integrate the experience, and
the long lasting results would most likely be a form of trauma,
denial, psychological splitting. Biological survival in this scenario
takes precedence over spiritual or psychological evolution and implies
a regression to the more fundamental levels of our physical existence..
If the mother/father could look at the baby as a person and commit
murder with an inclusive and open heart, I can imagine the baby
"agreeing" to self sacrifice. I find it difficult to imagine the baby
"agreeing" if the "sentence" implicitly spoken by the parents were to
be something like, "We are not looking at you, and we are killing you
so that we can survive and you cannot. We are stronger, so we place
our right to survive over yours." At the level of biological survival,
I suspect the baby would also prefer personal survival, just as the
parents would be doing.
But how does one murder one's own child with an open heart?
Your question reminds me of some of my major reservations about
constellation work and how it is sometime applied. I question the
usefulness of constellation experiences for making ethical decisions
about how we should behave. Their power does not lie, in my
experience, in telling us what to do to affect the future, but rather
to inform us about possibilities for dealing with the presence and
effect of the past in the present and future.
BTW: I really admire the work you are doing.
Go well
Hunter
On 20.05.2008, at 20:58, Dan Booth Cohen wrote:
In my Dissertation I am linking recent findings in neuroscientific
moral
psychology to Constellations. The former is digital and
quantitative, while
Constellations are analog and qualitative. In this sense, there is no
comparing them. However, the findings seem compatible.
With that as an introduction, I have a research assignment for you.
Here is
the moral dilemma of the crying baby based on an event from the
Korean War:
It is wartime, and you and some of your fellow villagers are hiding
from
enemy soldiers in a basement. Your baby starts to cry, and you cover
your
baby's mouth to block the sound. If you remove your hand, your baby
will cry
loudly, the soldiers will hear, and they will find you and the
others and
kill everyone they find, including you and your baby. If you do not
remove
your hand, your baby will smother to death. Is it okay to smother
your baby
to death in order to save yourself and the other villagers?
The question posed in the research study is, "What would you do?"
But I
pose a different question.
Imagine you set up the issue in a Constellation. You ask the
representative
for the baby, "How do you feel about sacrificing your life so your
mother
and the others can live?" How does the baby respond?
Please indulge me, if this all seems forced and phony. I have my
idea of
the answer, and am trying to collaborate it, so it is not only my own
conjecture. Thanks.
To protect the integrity of the answers please respond to
Dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Thanks.
Dan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
