Response Is Different From An Answer

A response is what you are experiencing as you take in the other and what s/he says or does. Your response is what you are feeling, sensing, thinking, imagining, and your expressing of it. A response is present and fluid. It's a personal sharing and tends to welcome the response of the other. One definition of an answer is that it is a solution and it typically is intellectual and impersonal. An answer is about an issue or subject, not about the person giving it. And as Rabbi Burger states, an answer tends to be definitive and closes down further discussion. Ferocity is fierce and cruel aggression. I don't value ferocity. I do value assertiveness and some non-fierce aggression. I think ferocity and tenderness don't balance -- they are either or. My effort is to balance assertiveness and non-fierce aggression with tenderness. Factors that help me to lead with a response include my motivation being right, the situation appearing to be right for me to respond, and my strongly feeling my response.

Your view resonates with me about answer and response.

I struggle with the two characters, ferocity and tenderness in Rabbi Burger's approach to response, and your assertion of exclusive trait. I ask myself the question, is it possible to be tenderly ferocious or ferociously tender in leading? If so, in what context or situation(s) for one or the other?

By definition, ferocious means an unrestrained violence and brutality. It doesn't mean strong. By definition, tenderness means gentleness and kindness. I can see someone being strongly or assertively gentle. I don't see a person being violently gentle. I can see a person being kindly strong and assertive. I don't see a person being kindly violent. For me, ferocity and tenderness don't go together.