This is http://www.essayz.com/b0409021.htm Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ===============================================================> See what editing of this essay will come later. <======
%ESSENTUAL ASSPECTS HEALTHY HUMANE RELATIONSHIP SIN 040902 %DEVILS INDIVIDUALS ISOLATED ESTRANGE EXCOMMUNICATE 040902 %EXCLUDED REJECTED DENIGRATED SAVIOR REDEEMER GOODS 040902 %TREE KNOWLEDGE SWEET FRUIT EXPERIENCES AUTHORITIES 040902 %RULES LAWS PURITY CODES JUDGEMENTS ARROGANCE FALL 040902 %PRESCRIPTIONS PROSCRIPTIONS EXTREME BALANCE MUTUAL 040902 What are the essential aspects of healthy human relationships? What must be present in human relationships for them to be healthy? Many healthy human relationships differ from each other; but are still healthy relationships. In what ways are healthy human relationships alike? Is it helpful to say that for a human relationship to be healthy --- it must CONFORM to some particular IDEAL-FORM? Is CONFORMITY of some kind --- an essential ingredient? If so, who is to define what kind of CONFORMITY is essential? Must conformity be imposed by people who are not "insiders" --- upon those who are "insiders". Can CONFORMITY be imposed unilaterally in "successful" ways --- which make the resultant relationships "healthy"? Are these helpfully framed questions; or are these misleading questions? Who can say with authority which questions should be respected? If the above questions are misleading questions, what aspects of the questions lead them to be misleading? What are the misleading: assumptions, attitudes, convictions, categories, perspectives, bits-if-logic, reasonings, motivations, intentions, biases, prejudices, collusions, addictions, confusions, etc. --- which are present in the framing of the questions, those who frame the questions, and/or in those who claim that the questions are misleading? Who claims that their questions and/or objections are "unquestionable"? Behind the above questions are all of the difficulties associated with evil-relationships that are dominated by domineering-people who feel/believe that they should/must be allowed to dominate other people's relationships. How can we most helpfully relate to such domineering-people and cooperatively engage in risk- management in our relationships with domineering-people --- so as to build cooperative healthy-relationships? Must coercion and violence be part of our relationships with such domineering-people? How can we avoid coercion and violence in our relationships with domineering-people? Can we identify aspects-of-relationships which are missing from evil-relationships AND are present in healthy-relationships? Might it be MORE helpful to point out publically what essentials of healthy-relationships are missing from particular evil-relationships --- THAN to mandate conformity to some externally-imposed ideal-forms? The above considerations point to many of the difficulties associated with trying to live lives in terms of prescriptions, proscriptions, commandments and demands offered by domineering people. There exist gracious alternatives which do not lead to as much alienation. Such gracious alternatives are often demonstrated by people who are not-violent, not-coercive and not- domineering --- but news-media do not cover their stories as often as they cover the stories of people who are- violent, are-coercive, and are-dominerring. What must people do to get-attention? Are domineering-people the only ones who "merit" attention? Why do coercion and violence merit so much attention? Is such attention well deserved, well formulated and/or truly helpful? Where might such attention be directed more creatively? (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================