Enabling Behavior

No Soldier's Creed, Wescli?

Yoda: Premonitions, premonitions. These visions you have...
Anakin Skywalker: They are of pain, suffering. Death.
Yoda: Yourself you speak of, or someone you know?
Anakin Skywalker: Someone.
Yoda: Close to you?
Anakin Skywalker: Yes.

The above lines are simple questions and answers. They are designed to find the root of the problem


Yoda: Careful you must be when sensing the future Anakin. The fear of loss is a path to the dark side.
This is a statement of warning from years of experience, a life lesson that Anakin has yet to learn. The Fear of Loss leading to the dark side is a known consequence, a statement of fact.

Anakin Skywalker: I won't let these visions come true, Master Yoda.
This is a statement of arrogance and ego. A childish response made by a someone who feels he is better than the lessons implication.

Yoda: Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not.
Another statement of fact from Yoda followed by teaching points of how to attain the realization of the natural aspect of death.

Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is.
A teaching point followed by statements of fact.

Anakin Skywalker: What must I do, Master Yoda?
The emotional child asking for help, but not truly listening. If he would have paid attention to his training for the previous years, he would know what to do. Man Up and take responsibility for your actions.

Yoda: Train yourself to let go... of everything you fear to lose.
Stating the Jedi training method for removing attachment.

Enabling is a word for people who wish to blame others for their failures. Kindness and compassion are from the heart and are not in their base enabling. It is what the receiver of the message does with that message, or how they interpret the message that defines the actions of the receiver.

Unless the sender is trying to manipulate the receiver (as Palpatine was to Anakin) the passage above in itself is not manipulative, but stated with care and well wishes for enlightenment.

Enabling is viewed from the point of the observer, the person who is trying to affix blame for an action that is also viewed in hindsight. The lesson a person learns from Jake Lawson is; Don’t help others who are in need of kindness and compassion because their mistakes will be your fault. His article is just another example of “generation entitlement” expecting someone else to do for them. “Make me feel better about myself so I can blame you when I don’t!”

A Jedi Knight’s Words Only Speak the Truth!

I feel like, as V said, there really is a gray line here about when a situation / mercy / change is tenable, and when it is not.

I also think that situations need to be considered as a whole. Perhaps a spouse has a bad problem with drinking, or spending money recklessly, but s/he is in other respects a devoted partner. Where should a person draw the line? Aren't we all, in some small ways (or perhaps big ways) enablers?

My question to you is whether one can maintain a relationship with a person with a problem, like a spouse, without being an enabler. Is it ever "okay" to accept that a person has problems (by doing nothing?) without 1.) trying to change them to remove the problem, or 2.) "punishing" them for the problem, by leaving them?

Archaic Smile wrote: I feel like, as V said, there really is a gray line here about when a situation / mercy / change is tenable, and when it is not.

I also think that situations need to be considered as a whole. Perhaps a spouse has a bad problem with drinking, or spending money recklessly, but s/he is in other respects a devoted partner. Where should a person draw the line? Aren't we all, in some small ways (or perhaps big ways) enablers?

I see every moral/ethical issue as containing shades of gray personally. Each situation should definitely be weighed individually and as a whole.

Archaic Smile wrote: My question to you is whether one can maintain a relationship with a person with a problem, like a spouse, without being an enabler. Is it ever "okay" to accept that a person has problems (by doing nothing?) without 1.) trying to change them to remove the problem, or 2.) "punishing" them for the problem, by leaving them?

Personally,I don't worry about "enabling" issues because I strive to be honest and forthright. If I see a fault in another person I am close to I tend to point it out in a tactful manner. The difficult part is expressing my concerns without exacerbating the problem(s) or causing hard feelings.

I have a lot of the "signs" of an enabling personality, but I do my best to walk that fine, gray line between compassion and enabling. If we're not doing our best then why are we acting in the first place? If we do our best and fail then what is there to regret?