Chauncey, your ideas on work abuse are so very new and interesting to me. I'm eagerly awaiting your forthcoming book this month. Your highly developed thinking on the application of systmes approaches to comprehensively include shame and affect processes sometimes eludes me; but when I catch an insight here and there, I feel I've joined forces with the passion of a dedicated, intelligent, thougtful man who had put his own painful experiences to marevelous good use to help the rest of us understand why we suffer as we do. I am grateful to you for your work. I particularly like recalling often you definitions of verbal abuse (any regular, persistent use of language that intentionally or unintentionally causes distress-anguish--marvelously conceived for it's immediate usefulness when one understands "distress-anguish" as defined by Tomkins' Affect Theory) and of so-called job/work stress as often work abuse. Your understanding of how to manange the problems of introducing new, nonshaming language to understand human relations and associated affect in this last reply to my earlier posting is subtle and I have some questions about your meaning. Right now, however, I'm not sure what to ask. To begin, however, would you be able to elaborate a bit more on the following: "Robert Bly uses shame language in all his men's groups (he was the leader, so he could use role power to introduce and establish the new norm). Each new person who enters the group has to begin to engage his shame or the group's (positive) norm will be enforced on him!" How does he use shame language? How do members then engage his shame? Which norm will be enforced on Bly and in what sense is it a positive norm? I have not watched Bly in action; so I hope you will be patient if I seem especially slow to get it.
.... My signature quotation: "I try to learn from others' mistakes because I won't have enough time in my life to make them all myself." Jim Duffy