#40. Responsible vs. Response-able replied by brian @ Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:36:15 -0000

brian — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:36:15 -0000

Amen.

#40. Responsible vs. Response-able replied by TravisE @ Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:25:14 -0000

TravisE — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:25:14 -0000

For me the standard use of the term “responsible” is a container for guilt, or an excuse for the assignment of guilt and inherently looks to the past.

The term “response-able” is looking to the future, and is a container of strength, wisdom and possibility.

#40. Responsible vs. Response-able replied by brian @ Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:43:09 -0000

brian — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:43:09 -0000

I have to say I’m a little pissy about how the essence of the word “responsible” has been hijacked by some silly sense of societally-conditioned obligation.

Ahem.

To be RESPONSE-ABLE, that is, truly “responsible,” means to be capable of responding to a situation. NOT doing what others expect (or what you think would be a “responsible” thing to do).

The real question, in my mind, is not, “What’s the responsible thing to do here?” We’re way too good at answering that question.

The real question we need to get good at asking ourselves is something more like, “What do I truly want from this situation? What is the best response I can possibly make to this situation/challenge?”

THAT will lead us to our deepest instinct and to the core of how we will be truly “responsible” in giving our gifts to the world.

Yah?

* steps down from pulpit *

Recent Posts in '#40. Responsible vs. Response-able' | Beast

#40. Responsible vs. Response-able replied by brian @ Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:36:15 -0000

#40. Responsible vs. Response-able replied by TravisE @ Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:25:14 -0000

#40. Responsible vs. Response-able replied by brian @ Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:43:09 -0000