Re: Topic #3 Introduction

[River8da]

Hi everybody,
     Thanks for your replies; I'm learning so much about this topic, how I think, don't think:):), present my thoughts, etc., so thanks to all of you for the space and the exhchange.
     In my small amount of experience with naming the agenda at the outset, and stating that people should feel free to leave or see the group as not right for them has met with no reaction on the other side, but to continue with indirect criticisms and attacks, sometimes becoming even more insidious.
In regard to the subversiveness being used as a metaskill which might be a playful denial: my idea was more to change my own assemblage point from feeling victimized to feeling challenged, thereby allowing a more creative and fun approach within myself to the subversive element. Your idea of just saying hello makes me smile already. In doing that you are naming and welcoming it as well as staying curious and open.
     Yes, I think there are "frozen with fear" parts, but the group has named this, in addition to naming an honoring of the groups' process and it's timing around exploring the same.
     There feels to be something more I want to get at around how to work with the subversive element if I think of it as being right somehow without making a program of that idealogy but rather letting it somehow show me it's way.  Could it be a "shadow" side of the group,again, the "not we", showing itself and wanting somehow to be expressly valued and manifested in the group?
     I notice that no one responded to this question and I wonder if it just does'nt hold any energy or....?
Also, I would like to explore moving the discussion to the intrapersonal level in addition to the field level. When is it okay, necessary, incumbent upon the facilitator(s) and or the group to hold someone accountable for how their personal history has a part or is informing their subversive behavior?
Over and out:)
Ada