Opening Questions…
- What does courage have to do with nonviolence or empathy?
- How do our regular strategies for protection prevent full connection with others?
- How does evaluative thinking stunt the full effect, and even the possibility, of our courage?
Courage in Its Many Forms >>>
There are many different interpretations for what “courage” means.
Some people may describe courage as a quality of character, perhaps something you simply have or don’t have at some stage in your life.
Others may describe courage as a mood or an emotion we experience at certain important points in our lives. At the moment, I may or may not “feel courageous” in a given situation.
I prefer for my own purposes to refer to courage as a certain way of being in response to how I’m feeling or what I’m needing in a given moment, based in part on what I’m perceiving others feeling or needing.
Why the semantic difference?
The reason is that I find it particularly easy to use “courage” as a judgment against myself or someone else. In times when perhaps I am lacking the degree of confidence I would like to have in response to a situation, it is easy for me to think “I don’t have enough courage” or “I’m not courageous enough.”
The downfall to this sort of thinking is it can result in a static portrayal of myself: “In times of heat, I am not courageous enough to be reliable.”
Such static images of myself can actually undermine the innate capacity for courageous being in my life, insisting that I am not a courageous person or that I lack something that others have.
Another major difference for me is in the view that the capacity for courageous being (rather than a quality that we may not express at a given time) is something we are born with.
Why is this? Because we are born with the two rudimentary elements that comprise courage: (1) vulnerability and (2) the ability to express what we want or what would make life more wonderful.
I guess would be as Kierkegaard (spelling?) an authentic person. He gives an example of an authentic person as: a man taking a walk before dinner. As he walks he thinks of his wife who is cooking him dinner. He envisions her making a pot roast with potatoes. He relishes the idea of the pot roast, since it is his favorite. He then returns home to find a meat loaf on the table for dinner. He sits down and eats the meat loaf with al the relish he would have had if it was pot roast and praises his wife’s cooking as if she had prepared pot roast. As an ‘Authentic Man’ his needs were met either way and there were no regrets.
OR
A man falls through thin ice on a lake. As he clings to life a crowd gathers. The crowd discusses what to do to save the man, going over many options. One man seeing the man in the lake grabs some rope rushes out on the lake and saves the drowning man. The saviour did not pause to think of his own safety or go over the best options, rather he acted.
I guess I would not spend so much time thinking of what my needs are but accepting the circumstances of the situation. Because the situation will almost always turn out OK, or perhaps give me a learning experience from which I can profit in some way. Or dictate the course of action necessary.
It is not that I don’t have needs but that when I am in a situation with other people I tend to think, for the most part, about their needs. After all, true love is about the other not the self.
Although this may not be the best way to look at things it is how I do so. And how I do , is usually the best Way of Being. Diverse Wanderer
Jim! Great to get a comment from you! 🙂
I’m curious where you read about that story in Kierkegaard — do you recall? I’m interpreting it as “being authentic is linked with having no regrets” (which I greatly disagree with), but I’m not certain that that’s what either you or he are trying to convey… Would you let me know what it is that you see in the way the man responds to his wife’s cooking as authentic (perhaps keeping in mind that when we’re talking about authenticity in NVC, we’re partly referring to the honesty in expressing what’s really coming up for us to someone else — to varying lengths)?
I also am hearing what you’re saying in the second story as that there are times when taking time to think/feel through things could result in disaster. I totally agree with this. How we (very) consciously program ourselves in non-life-threatening situations to respond, however, may very well affect how we end up responding in life-threatening situations; so while I believe in the power of unconscious responsiveness in situations when the time to respond with effectiveness to saving or serving life is short, there’s still a lot of in-between moments when the time for careful, conscious consideration may be more life-serving than instant (“less-mindful”) reactivity. And those mindful moments could very well enhance or change our inner programming for the better so that our unconscious-response moments are all the more effective or life-serving. How does this thought land in you?
Peace to you, my friend!
The little boy came down the stairs for breakfast and announced,
“I had two bad dreams and twenty-thirty good ones.”
“What were the good dreams about,” his father asked.
“Dragons” the little boy replied.
“And what were the bad dreams about?” his father asked.
“Dragons” the little boy replied.
I love this little anecdote, Howard ^_^ Would you be willing to explain just a bit for me why this came to you (I’m guessing while reading this post)?
Missing you guys — hope all’s well out there!