Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 16:53:40
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 6:50:39
> Ahhh. CBT.
> I hate it.Oh dear, I wasn't trying to be CBTish at all. I would never knowingly inflict that on another human being :-)
I will try to explain what I had in mind. Have you ever seen a duck-rabbit picture? Here is a link:
http://philo.zm3.net/visuals/Ambiguous/DuckRabbit.gif
Now, is it a duck or is it a rabbit? (You might need to look again). It all depends on how you look at it. In a way it is a choice whether to view it as a duck or whether to view it as a rabbit. Can you see how it is senseless to argue about how we *should* see it, or to argue about how it is *really*?
Now what I had in mind was how we see VSG's. Is it a barred room or is it a picnic in the park? I suppose we could view it either way depending on whether we focus on the pro's or whether we focus on the con's. All I was trying to illustrate is that there are different ways of seeing the same thing. Differences of opinion typically come about because people see the thing they are disagreeing on in different ways. But IMO it is harder to be mad at someone for seeing it differently if we can see where they are coming from (though we can still choose to see it the other way at the end of the day).
What I worry about with this discussion is that you have certain things that you think VSG's are by definition. Exclusionary and elite and so on. If I thought that VSG's were in fact exclusionary and elite then I would be opposed to them as a matter of principal. They would violate my core values. The other way we could look at them is to say that VSG's will promote more intensive caring and feelings of inclusion. By defintion if you like. To see them that way then my core values would say - we *should* in fact implement them.
But can you see how people who view them differently (in the VSG case) are in actual fact talking about two different things?
That is why I am trying to talk about VSG's and remove the emotive analogies and try to talk about something that is somewhere in the middle. Something with pro's and con's. Something where you have to weigh up hurt that some people may feel from being excluded from the good feelings of belonging and care that some people may feel from being a member of a VSG.
That was my thought there.
> While I can see the value of reframing issues sometimes, I can't see the value of reframing them always. Sometimes issues shouldn't be reframed. A lot of injustice happens when people reframe things that shouldn't be reframed.You can still continue to see it your way at the end of the day, of course. I am just trying to say that if you do try to see it the other way then it is harder to be mad or disappointed in people who see it differently.
> I don't think reframing it in such a way as to violate your core values is a viable option.But what I am wondering is whether it is possible that there may be another way to look at it in which your core values aren't violated.
> And choosing to be hurt seems to me like the old sticks and stones retort. It sounds nice. It makes the CBT'ers tails' wag. But I think it sounds nicer than it sounds true.Hmm. That is a hard one. I am just trying to work on the *so very* hurt...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:441543
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/451175.html