Structure versus reality II - Life as a 4 quadrant affair
Ivo Banaco
ibanaco at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 06:44:16 CDT 2008
A quick illustration of life as a four quadrant affair:
Example: Ed's uncle plight
_____________________________________________________________________________
Subjective
Objective
- Ed's uncle feelings, emotions, thoughts;
-Neurophysiological correlations
of the subjective experience
- Edward Schreiber individual perspective
-The objective event itself
- The concrete behavioural
responses to the event
____________________________________________________________________________
Intersubjective
Interobjective
- Ed's uncle intersubjective environment
-US social security structure
- Financial crisis
- The sociometric relationships and status
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ken Wilber would say that any response to this issue without addressing this
four fundamental perspectives would be dangerously reductionist. Economics -
The dismal science - tends to built models and understand the economical
life reducing all perspectives to the lower left quadrant, making rather
poor assumptions (consciously and unconsciously) about the other 3
fundamental perspectives. For instance, the assumption about some rational
man (no emotions, no intersubjective relationships, no culture). Also taking
subjective or intersubjective interpretations without taking to account the
underlying objective structures is also part of the problem of reductionism.
After all we all born in an already created world and the objective
structures are indeed very powerful.
Ken Wilber talks of the need of an integral approach that makes an effort to
embrace all perspectives. But this is only a framework, a meta theory, it is
not the action method itself. So any attempt to compare Moreno to Ken Wilber
is misleading in this regard.
My intuitive perception about Sociatry methods is that they could put into
practice this framework. But I also want to know something more specific
about that...Ed?
Ivo
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Edward Schreiber <
edwschreiber at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dear Anath,Thanks for your (much more than) 2 cents contribution.
> I feel that in clear and precise terms you have given a profound and clear
> understanding of JL Morero's METHOD OF SEEING AND KNOWING what the world,
> these structures, and the solution - is all about. I am not a student of
> the Kaballah but I know Moreno was. I know that from Zerka.
> And I suspect there is much, very much in the teachings of the Kaballah
> that will assist and help us to further refine our understanding of Moreno's
> method. He drew his inspiration from the great spiritual traditions, rather
> than biology - his method is a spiritual tradition, a path of awakening
> really. What else could it be? It invokes (and in fact provokes) the
> Godhead to show ITSELF to a group, it invites that emergence within the
> organism of the individual, and sociometry reveals the telic connections
> which when used with a Sociatric consciousness, reverses the sociodynamic
> effect in a small group, and then the Organic Unity emerges, moves people to
> a Unity. What more can we ask for! We have a method that is as sacred as
> any religious or spiritual tradition - and it belongs to humanity now!
> Much much much thanks for your 2 Million (vs. 2 cents) contribution! Ed
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 11:00 PM, thana ag wrote:
>
> Dear Adam,Ed and all,
>
> Adam:To say that Moreno found objective reality underlying all relations is
> extremely problematic. He noticed that rapport is an important dynamic that
> is worth attending to. This is no small contribution! I honor him for it and
> think this angle has yet to be fully developed.
>
> Anath: perhaps a way to reconcile the statement that Moreno found an
> objective reality underlying all relations,by noticing that rapport ."tele"
> ,,is an underlying dynamic universally present -: would be to point out that
> if we consciously develop this "telic ability" and will resonate
> empathically with others,indeed we will discern a whole new underlying
> reality
> . Kabalah points out that there is where our evolution as species is
> headed,or else worse disasters than current ones,a result of human greed etc
> will befall us.It will necessitate us to "discover" our underlying unity,or
> whatever name we want to call it, and act accordingly. .But can we say that
> that universe existed before and by developing the "empathy" we were able
> to discern it,or that we co created it through our experience.?
> .
> Here is my 2cents contribution
> anath
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: ablatner at verizon.net
> To: edwschreiber at earthlink.net
> Subject: structure versus reality
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:34:44 -0500
> CC: list at grouptalkweb.org
>
> Dear Ed and all,
> We must differentiate *structure* and *reality*. At a certain level
> of philosophy, word meanings are not to be easily discounted as mere
> quibbling.
>
> I tend to hold with Ken Wilber's 4-quadrant view of reality that
> includes as real---not more or less real, but to be balanced in:
> 1. Interior subjectivity 2. Inter-subjectivity, the "we," what
> we create and agree to; 3. Exterior objectivity--- cells, brains, physical
> buildings, planets
> and 4. Objective collectivities: Associations, organizations, tribes.
> All exist, interpenetrate, influence each other and themselves at different
> levels.
>
> So my comment on structure invites us to differentiate between
> physical structure---actual threads in the spider web--- and realms of mind
> and society--- which, because of their many frames of reference and
> dimensions (humor, politics, economics, literature, drama, therapy, etc.)
> *cannot have a clear structure*.
> We may discern models to which we assign metaphors, seeming
> structures, but close inspection shows areas of blurring, overlap, and
> contexts in which our model doesn't adequately work.
>
> So I don't deny external reality or circumstances. I do call into
> question our *interpretations* of these (quadrant numbers 1 and 2, and a
> little number 4) , as these may shift with viewpoint and history, for
> example. They may be useful---our imagined structures--- but they are still
> mental co-creations...
>
> To say that Moreno found objective reality underlying all relations is
> extremely problematic. He noticed that rapport is an important dynamic that
> is worth attending to. This is no small contribution! I honor him for it and
> think this angle has yet to be fully developed.
>
> Now the uncle example and money---ah, money! Money is such a good
> example of the overlap between quadrants 2 and 4, especially: the
> intersubjective (what you and I think something is worth) and the collective
> (what "they" think it's worth, and how it gets measured, negotiated,
> exchanged---the whole ambiguous realm of economics.)
> One reason economics has been called the dismal science is that
> fixed structures that apply to all contexts are hard to pin down and get
> general consensus. Often they betray underlying political biases. There are
> some more resilient principles, some less so--- are there any structures in
> the general realms of economics? Debatable.
> (Even the structured packages that contain problematic mortgages
> are structures only of current laws, regulations, standards, expectations,
> and so forth.)
>
> To think that slapping a label of the SDE (sociodynamic effect) on it
> adequately or even partially explains anything --- well, maybe it does, but
> as yet I haven't seen a cogent explanation. (Nor does the label of
> schizophrenia explain the complex and still mysterious phenomena attending
> that condition.) Labels don't explain that much.
>
> Ed, I appreciate your enthusiasm. And perhaps you really see more
> specifics in among your generalities than I have been able to discern. But
> until these are pointed out, well, I have difficulty appreciating Moreno's
> writings as more than general envisionings in directions that (for the most
> part) evoke my sympathy.
>
> Sorry to hear about your uncle's plight, by the way. I fear we may
> hear many more stories like this as various relatives and friends begin to
> share their stories. He's lucky to have a caring nephew.
>
> Warmly, Adam
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Edward Schreiber <edwschreiber at earthlink.net>
> *To:* Grouptalk Listserv <list at grouptalkweb.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2008 2:30 PM
> *Subject:* What is Real?
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Sorry for a delay in responding to this thread of emails, a worthy
> conversation for sure. I had some family issues - an 89 year old Uncle ran
> out of money in the collapse of the economy - and so family had to be
> brought together. I want to respond to Adam Blatner's comments:
>
> AB: "This dialectical tension between two ideas is also present in Moreno's
> claim that society "has" a structure. There is no out-there objective
> structure, and one might well argue (as have a number of philosophers, at
> length) that it is misleading to imagine that objectivity is a sufficient
> way of thinking about reality---it denies our co-creative structuring of
> reality via our own consciousness!"
>
> "The political implications are that we must resist becoming
> over-inflated and grandiose (and resist unconsciously imitating Moreno), but
> rather we should explore ways we can implement various models and create new
> ones."
>
>
> "The problems with some of these concepts is that they generate great
> ambition while delivering elusive actual methods (except those that which
> can be used by individuals and in small groups of willing and educated
> participants)."
>
>
> I agree that there is a subject nature to what we each experience as real.
> This subjectivity is what we bring to our work and our lives. To suggest
> that there is "no out-there objective structure" is a bit concerning. The
> objective structure for me this last week was that Uncle E., in New Rochelle
> NY has social security income that is 1/3 of his present expenses. This
> income was supported with dividends from stocks that Seniors (once) felt
> would help them in their final years of their lives. Not the case for the
> working poor. The task, in my experience with it all, is to tease out my
> subjective response to these objective realities. The quick-melt of the
> polar caps is an objective reality. The fact that in one week an 89 year
> old writer living alone in New York State found his life's savings gone - is
> both objective and subjective. The world and its structures are real. Our
> subjective realities - in response to the world - impact our own
> physiological, biological, spiritual, emotional realities.
>
> The fact that J.L. Moreno FOUND objective reality underlying and
> determining all groups, all systems, all societies - has led me to pierce my
> own subjective reaction, to highten my consciousness ---- and yes ---- to
> determine a course of action. In years past, as a social scientist my
> concern was on the systems in collapse of the natural world. At first the
> dying bee population REALLY caught my attention, as have the polar shifts,
> polar melts, polar bears, changing climates, fires in California, draughts
> in Africa, and the vanished clean water in many places around the Globe.
>
> Dr. Moreno's writings (in almost all his works) have pointed to this
> objective reality of human civilization, the sociodynamic effect. The long
> awakening of seeing this objective reality has been for me as for most of
> us, been experience and observed, witnessed and experienced through the
> filters that our subjective minds have formed as a way to make meaning to
> this objective reality.
>
> I just do buy the notion that subjectivity is real and objective reality is
> not. The sociodynamic effect is everywhere. Where did my Uncle's 285.
> dollars vanish to? Did it just evaporate? Did it, this sum, find its way
> to a black hole? Sure, the value of "a stock" became of less value - and of
> course I and all my family have had subjective reactions - but this sucking
> of resources away from the many is not only subjective, it is real - it is
> in the world - it is the nature of the civilization in which we are living.
>
> On the other side of this same coin is the potential to "co-create"
> something new. That I fully agree - but new in what way? To see the world
> through the lens of the sociodynamic effect has made objective reality
> clearer - less muddied with overlays of explanation that in the end simply
> explain away this sociodynamic effect. We are at a great moment in
> humanity's history, don't you think? For most of humanity's short stay, the
> sociodynamic effect impacted all social groupings, all nations - emerging in
> cultures, histories, conflicts, and peace. The reversal of the sociodynamic
> effect the same.
>
> The nature of the Organic Unity of Humanity (connected to the Source
> animating every sentient life) is another reality, seemingly throughout
> history. Jesus, Gandhi,
> Martin Luther King, Lincoln, on and on - were sociometrists bringing
> forward "A New Earth" (as Eckhardt Tolle notes) but now we, humanity, are in
> the end stage of the sociodynamic effect with nature and the earth itself,
> or at least that is what some of the enviornmental sciences suggest. For
> example, how can 3 percent of the human family use 28 percent of all the
> resources? Can we sustain this? At whose expense? Those stripped of
> resources, will they survive?
>
> The point is, for me, JL Moreno's GRANDIOSE understanding is a clear
> Zen-like template to see the world. I love standing with him in that - it
> gives me a sense of the world less confused with political positions. I
> used to be very upset about all this, still am, but as this organic unity
> emerges, and I feel this, see this, Know this directly - I see the
> transformaitonal seeds being planted and growing.
>
> I do not know a more precise presentation of reality - than that of JL
> Moreno.
>
> Best,
>
> Edward Schreiber
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1722 - Release Date: 10/13/2008
> 7:50 AM
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows
> Live. See Now<http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/direct/01/>Grouptalk
> mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20081014/48faa8ae/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the List
mailing list