generalities
Edward Schreiber
edwschreiber at earthlink.net
Thu Oct 16 09:01:06 CDT 2008
Greetings!
Thanks Ivo for this outline and reflection. I find your email to be
a "mirror" to all of us. You are showing a perspective, we can see
ourselves and aspects of ourselves (positive, negative, mutual,
ambivalence, etc.) in what you say. For myself, of course I love
what you wrote about my comments in your first point. I also agree.
Honestly, it's taken 18 years to understand sociatry. Zerka said in
a workshop in May, after I spoke of all this in my own work, she said
to the group, "he's a slow learner" and I would say there's a lot to
learn. How do we take the method and stretch it to the whole of
mankind? The only way is through taking the instruments and seeing
them, differently. But I am a dedicated theorist, and Moreno is my
theory. I've tried others, Wilber, Derrick Jesnsen, as related
fields, but the foundation for me is Moreno. So in seeing the method
differently, as a theorist, I had to go to the trenches and find
documents of theory that are not widely known. I'm Very Fortunate to
live in Massachusetts for many reasons. For one, I can legally marry
as a gay man. If I lived north or south or west I could not
(although thank God that is slowing changing). The sociodynamic
effect has it, it organizes groups, formal and informal, to move
resources from the whole to the few. The right to marry the person I
am in love with was denied to me. That role (of huge and high value)
was moved to a few, and thus, isolates were produced. And the years
of dealing with this have led to an understanding of "why this is the
case". My Brother Christian de la Huerta has been instrumental in
all this. If you don't know of him, he's an exceptional being. In
fact - he and I are co-leading a program at the IAGP Summer Academy
in Granada Spain in 2009.
The reason I bring him up is he is a researcher and author as well,
and has placed a period of his work on a study of the role of gay and
lesbian, transgendered, Two-Spirited people. With great fortune I've
been involved with the work of Clyde Hall (Naraya Preservation
Society). He is a Shoshone man who does good work for all people.
In any case, the role of gay-lesbian-two-spirited people have always
been to be a bridge between the two worlds. That role was stripped
by onslaughts over years of reducing the two-spirits into less-than-
human. To secure the power related to the sociodynamic effect. This
power, the sociodynamic effect, has created what we are living with:
massive poverty, people without homes or even water to drink, vast
areas of lands of people without any food - and then we have the rest
of what we see. The sociodynamic effect is an effect that emerges as
a meta-structure and is part of the central underlying structure to
human society. UNDER THAT HOWEVER is the Godhead that gives form
life and life form. And that's what emerges within groups and within
individuals.
The single most important aspect of all this comes from my dearest of
dearest of dearest of friends: Zerka T. Moreno.
When I was much younger and a man living with AIDS, without much
going for me but a good heart and a sharp mind, she took me under her
wing and she gave me shelter. She also pushed me to learn and grow
but always with a love that felt known by her. And now, tomorrow, on
Friday this week I formally sign the papers to open a non-profit
Foundation in her name, to honor her - and her work and life (this
is a sort of Zen honoring) but also to form a way to bring all this
to the world.
The single most important aspect I mentioned is what she has always
pointed me to: an autonomous healing center inside of me - and now I
know the tools, even formulas from this theory - to bring this too,
ways to open the a.h.c. inside each of us, in groups, and in society
like planting of seeds.
That's my life.
Best,
Ed
On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Ivo Banaco wrote:
> Adam,
>
> 1- This thread started with Ed's bold vision of following Moreno's
> sociatry. He has a vision, he has methods, and he wants to apply it
> to the world at large. This is, as you called it a gross
> generalization, but I would called a meta cognition of things which
> is an essential 1st step to apply something with a clear purpose in
> action;
>
> 2 - Language it's the ultimate generalization. If you use it you
> are categorizing, thus trying to represent in symbols not the thing
> in itself but the way we organize our mind to make sense of this
> world. It is simply inescapable; so when you, with skepticism, tend
> to reject those bold statements preferring other ways, you are
> implicitly making your own judgement, your own generalization; of
> that are degrees of generalizations, but I think you are saying
> that you support the discrimination of all different kinds of
> groups, persons, environment to the maximum possible, while
> rejecting other kinds of aggregations. But if take your way to the
> limit we wouldn't be possible to talk about north-American culture,
> typical Japanese person, etc - that for me is my understanding of
> dominant mode of discourse, dominant mode of life, etc.
>
> 3- In the limit, the non-verbal, the non-expressible, the non-dual,
> a trans-personal state of consciousness is the only way to stop
> making generalizations and see that we are all One. In a mature
> human being only the direct experience of the non-dual could bring
> us to a different understanding of things...because when we try to
> explain we move to the partial, the dual...we could follow a way
> but stop being The Way.
>
> 4- We live in a historical turning point in our lives, as human
> beings. If we take a large view of humanity (a gross
> generalization), it is the first in our history that at a push of a
> button no human being will be left to see the results. That is
> humans created the possibility of auto-destruction. At the same
> time, we also created good technology, action methods and, most
> importantwe developed a self awareness of who we are and how we
> want to live in the future. So there are possibilities, choices and
> decisions to be made. The most important thing, whatever the
> concrete steps we choose, is a cognitive and emotional awareness
> that no matter what our differences are, we all have two legs, two
> hands, one heart, one head. When we smile we tend to be happy, when
> we cry we tend to be sad. This is universal, not cultural.
>
> 5- Post-modernism made the wonderful "discover" of the differences
> that we must respect between cultures. In this information era we
> have virtually access of all different cultures in the world. But
> it is time to move forward, to move together and bring a new mode
> of discourse to the world. Good intentions, bold statements,
> utopia? Perhaps, but do we have a choice?
>
> Ivo
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Adam Blatner
> <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> But it is impossible not to make generalizations.
> ab: how so? What circumstances? I think each time one
> makes a generalization, some rationale for how this is useful needs
> to be explained.
>
> IB The biggest problem is to distinguish between individual and
> groups. AB: this seems worse than a generalization, it's
> impossibly vague.
>
> IB Many theorists make the mistake to claim that a group is a super
> I, in the sense that in their taxonomy the group is in a higher
> level relatively to individual.
> Not so I think.
>
> AB: Good for you. That one is a theorist or makes a claim or
> is a recognized authority does not mean that these claims are
> correct or useful.
>
> IB am again with Wilber in this, as I believe that individual
> and group arises simultaneously.
> There are no groups without individuals, but the inverse
> is also truth.
>
> An individual, as Whitehead notes, has a dominant monad or an ego
> that coordinates all the different selves –however, most of the
> times it is not a democracy!
>
> A group has a dominant mode of discourse (see Integral
> Spirituality, chapter 7). Ideally, in the US elections, both
> candidates will try to capture, within their ideas, the largest
> number of persons. They either could resonate with the predominant
> mode of discourse or create a new one. But of course this is a big
> generalization. As Adam says there are many sub-sets, sub-cultures,
> and so on, we are all holons, which are wholes at the same time
> that are parts of a higher holon.
>
> AB: I'm not sure that I disagree, but these generalizations are too
> broad to be meaningful to me; I think that attempts to draw
> conclusions at this level of abstraction are quite vulnerable to
> over-generalizations.
> mentioning Whitehead again: http://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness
>
> So let's get down from the empyrean heights to asking: Are
> there any specific issues here? What are they?
> It's as if at a certain level of abstraction I lose the thread
> and along with it my warm-up.
> Ivor, what point do you want to make here? (Any specific
> examples?) Or any questions?
>
> Warmly, Adam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivo Banaco
> To: Adam Blatner ; list at grouptalkweb.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: powerful statements & action methods
>
>
> Hi Adam and all,
>
> Just some quick notes. When Ken Wilber differentiate between Lower
> left and Lower right quadrant he moves to the right all objective
> stuff, even cultural institutions, even language is in the right.
> When a Chinese (who doesn't understand any foreign language) try to
> engage in a dialogue with a German they eventually reach some kind
> of mutual understanding beyond any formal rule of language,
> environment or specific subjective mind set. When an I meet another
> I they could form a We space. If they fail, they fail to reach a
> fundamental perspective - the lower left quadrant. They become
> alien to each other, an it, an object to each other - not an I not
> a We…an It. Economics is a science that formed theories with a
> strong lower right basis. And has a rather limited understanding
> about the other perspectives.
>
> A more complicated thing, I believe, is to define cultural conserve
> that could have a direct correlation to LR institutional framework,
> but also I think could be a more LL informal conserve rules.
> Douglass North, a Nobel Prize winner, makes an interesting
> distinction between formal rules (LR) and informal rules (LL), both
> of them cultural conserves I believe.
>
> Another important point and related to this is that of the
> difficult concept of "people". AB: "the idea that we can
> communicate to the heart of people assumes that there is a category
> called "people," and the art of politics shows this to be illusory,
> like "structure." It is a gross overgeneralization. There are many
> many sub-sets, sub-cultures, demographic niches, and ultimately,
> the peculiarities of individuals. Even the individual is a
> combination of sub-selves or roles, many of which are in conflict
> or "undecided." Many of these roles are further rather unconscious
> or disowned."
>
> I agree. But it is impossible not to make generalizations. The
> biggest problem is to distinguish between individual and groups.
> Many theorists make the mistake to claim that a group is a super I,
> in the sense that in their taxonomy the group is in a higher level
> relatively to individual. Not so I think. I am again with Wilber in
> this, as I believe that individual and group arises simultaneously.
> There are no groups without individuals, but the inverse is also
> truth. An individual, as Whitehead notes, has a dominant monad or
> an ego that coordinates all the different selves – however, most of
> the times it is not a democracy! A group has a dominant mode of
> discourse (see Integral Spirituality, chapter 7). Ideally, in the
> US elections, both candidates will try to capture, within their
> ideas, the largest number of persons. They either could resonate
> with the predominant mode of discourse or create a new one. But of
> course this is a big generalization. As Adam says there are many
> sub-sets, sub-cultures, and so on, we are all holons, which are
> wholes at the same time that are parts of a higher holon.
>
> Best,
> Ivo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Adam Blatner
> <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Ivo, thanks for your comments. A few points. In your item on Ken
> Wilber, when you spoke of economics I think you meant the lower
> "right" (not left" column, the objective cultural institutions and
> arrangements (i.e., cultural conserves).
>
> The other point: You wrote: I think in our informational era,
> the importance that the written form has and how badly it is
> treated, particularly by the media, but also by the blog sphere and
> generally by Internet have to be a central concern for our society.
> The distorted messages, the shadow projections, the toxic
> arguments... Adam, I can see your point of giving more emphasis on
> action methods rather than bold statements. Perhaps we really need
> both, if we think the people who have the social power are the ones
> that can influence groups with nothing but illusions (but than
> using manipulative power and individual agendas). We need both an
> approach where we can communicate to the heart of people and
> simultaneously to deliver really concrete action methods. Is it
> possible to put the emphasis in both?
>
> AB: this struck me at a time when I've been thinking of
> the psycho-socio-cultural roots of epistemology---that big word
> referring to the question of how do we know what we know. I've been
> reading some books about critical thinking and psychology recently,
> and several points seem to be so. (I'm laying a foundation to reply
> to the paragraph above.)
> 1. People have been educated to "know." Knowing answers, having
> confidence in what you know, is seen as strength. Being unsure,
> still investigating, is weak. Some corollaries: a. Debate is good,
> and people should present their positions with passion, argument.
> (My whole point is that many of these positions are actually
> misleading and largely mistaken!) b. The older you are the more you
> should be "confident." c. Political leaders would not be voted in
> if they say, "I have some plausible ideas that we're going to try
> out; they seem better on medium close examination than my
> opponents. I am better at improvising (i.e., Moreno's ideal of
> spontaneity) than my opponent, and that is why you should vote for
> me. Circumstances change, and my campaign promises will likely need
> revision.... etc." People want certainty. The media feed this
> childish illusion.
> To restate: I don't hold with some of the unspoken
> rules about pretending that you know and it's okay to express this
> knowledge with confidence. Not only is this misleading, but it
> offers a model to young people that they, too, should develop a
> persona of pseudo-confidence. There are few heroes, models, out
> there offering models of reasoned inquiry, which is then the
> foundation for improvisation.
>
> 2. We have centuries of adults, authority figures, clergy,
> etc. saying "I know truth." This is the model. We have no tradition
> of God saying, "I'm improvising, and I'm not finished with
> creation; furthermore, I am not ultimately powerful: I cannot make
> you as co-creators behave. I am but a still, small voice in your
> souls."
>
> 3. People in their childish mentality associate the illusion of
> knowing (or its second-best status, believing in the face of
> mystery) with security. They feel insecure if anyone who is
> supposed to "know" hints that knowledge is provisional, a working
> model for the moment, and in need of ongoing revision. This demand
> for certainty has not yet been widely recognized as immature.
> Rather, authorities have pandered to it. (See the story of the
> Grand Inquisitor, in the middle of Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers
> Karamazov.")
>
> 3a. There's a tendency towards either-or thinking, so being
> less than confident about knowledge (which seems "strong") must
> then be viewed as "weak." Too few people have seen adults use the
> maturity and strength of persistence, diplomacy, negotiation,
> discussion, dialogue, listening, role reversal, empathy, and
> realized that this was a more authentic type of strength. Rather,
> we are exposed to superheroes and other movie figures who resort to
> simple physical power, force, intimidation, and violence to "win."
> The idea of coming to a "draw" is inconceivable to the immature
> mind, though in fact that's what we do all the time in a good
> disagreement with close family. How can we generate what seem to be
> win-win arrangements? That is the wisdom of diplomacy.
>
> 4. Returning to Ivo's comments about "bold statements." This is
> a strategy, a policy, and one should become clear where and how it
> is likely to be effective. In many contexts, bold statements tend
> to become free of qualifications and therefore oversimplified. This
> is a problem with politics and rhetoric. Half the time bold
> statements are misleading, stupid, can backfire, and /or are
> ignored. Occasionally, a bit of rhetoric is useful, depending on
> the situation and especially the audience! Who are you aiming your
> statements at?
>
> 5. There are other categories besides action methods and bold
> statements, other alternatives. One is an invitation to dialogue,
> one in which parties truly listen and are willing to revise their
> own positions according to their interaction.
>
> 6. The idea that we can communicate to the heart of people
> assumes that there is a category called "people," and the art of
> politics shows this to be illusory, like "structure." It is a gross
> overgeneralization. There are many many sub-sets, sub-cultures,
> demographic niches, and ultimately, the peculiarities of
> individuals. Even the individual is a combination of sub-selves or
> roles, many of which are in conflict or "undecided." Many of these
> roles are further rather unconscious or disowned.
> So politics as the art of the possible asks, "What group
> are we talking to and what do they need to hear? What can't they
> hear? What must be said if they are to vote for us? Can we lie? Can
> we get away with lying? How much can we stretch and distort the
> truth?" etc.
>
> (You may discern that I'm also reacting to the current swirl
> of political debate as we prepare for our national elections.)
>
> Well, that's enough for now. Warmly, Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1724 - Release Date:
> 10/14/2008 2:02 AM
>
>
> 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/20081016/6319d272/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the List
mailing list