re Moreno's greatness

[peterhowie at advisor.co.nz]

Dear Adam,

I've had this thought for a while now and this is as good a time as any to air it. It strikes me that you, of possibly all recent and current practitioners, have written the most, and the most broadly, on Moreno. Perhaps Tian Daytan is catching up. My current hypothesis is that you lack a kind of academic peer amongst us most of the time and this frustrates and dissapoints you. As a consequence you are,again and again, forced or motivated to poke holes in the ediface that is Moreno. Becasue others aren't and the holes are hige when seen through the eyes of one who has stuidied Moreno's works in depth. This is despite having done as much as anyone to actually and actively promote Moreno. 

At times your provocations feel a bit like the University Philosophy Professor throwing out challenges to the first year students with both a delight and a desperation and when feeling tired a mild grumpiness. 

All philosophies can be viewed from another's vantage point and Moreno is no different. But can a person view the philosophy from the vantage point of the philosopher who developed it? Many people can critique Moreno - that is the easy bit. Understanding him is the greater challenge, as it is for many, many philosophers and their philosophies. I think you are fully capable of reasonably critiquing Moreno becasue you have got into his shoes many times during you writing (and your writing on his writing)and your practice. My conjecture is that you would like others to have written, thought, considered, played with, proved and disproved, manipulated and deconstructed Moreno's work as well.  And that you feel somewhat lonely in this area.

For instance, if I am only aware of 40 - 50 % of Moreno's works/ideas/main conjectures, then what do my criticisms mean. They must be taken in context. If I know Moreno's writings but not the people he refers to, then again where do I take my meanings? If I don't take context into account when reading Moreno then what might I be missing. For instance, what was going on in the early 1930's that make Who Shall Survive so poignant? Also, reading one of the many European, Australian, Asian or US philosophers and some of them make Moreno seem crystal clear. 

Some people read the Tao Te Ching and get great meaning from it. But are they aware that it is written during a Confucian time and some of the poetic effects are only anti-Confucian allusions or relate to the times in which it is thought to have been written?

I get the feeling Adam that you would like more erudite and perhaps more academic colleagues and as many on this list relate as practitioners that is a problematic area for you. But I notice you keep coming back and supporting relentlessly both people and arguments at different times. You connect people and network people where you can. So your commitment is clear to promulgating 'something psychodramatic'. And I love you for it.

Cheers from over here

Peter in Brisbane





-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net>
Sent: Mon, 13 April 2009 21:50:11
To: Ivo Banaco <ibanaco at gmail.com>
Cc: grouptalk Listserv <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Subject: re Moreno's greatness

Dear Ivo and all,

Okay, as I said, I think he’s great and all that, so how you can think I’m implying something you call "pejorative" is interesting. 

Look, let’s see if we can agree on anything. What do you think of the following points? 

2. Moreno believed in creativity and not relying on the cultural conserve.

A. The cultural conserve is anything that has been created.

B. Moreno’s writings are a cultural conserve. 

C. Moreno never suggested that his writings should never be questioned, revised, or expanded on. 

D. One can respect a cultural conserve and still dare to critique some element? For example, is it okay to suggest that Moreno didn’t know about the internet, so he didn’t discuss its implications when it came to sociometry? 

How are we doing?

3. To agree with Moreno on 99.9% of what he wrote and think it is all wonderful is not a bad thing. 

A. What percentage of agreeing with Moreno is necessary before one is labeled as too critical? 98% 88% 54% what?

So, my response beyond that: 

I am caught up in multiple projects and cannot at this point describe misleading or mistaken points—one is late in WSS where he suggests that anyone over 30 or older kill themselves in order to make room for babies! – 

But I invite others to wonder if there are any points that seem to be misleading in Moreno’s stuff. Certainly there are lots of areas which are confusing and ambiguous. Anyway, the point is that his writings should not be treated as sacred scripture, but rather you and others should feel free to build on them, revise them, bring in stuff from other fields. Jung said he never wanted to have followers; he just made his observations and wanted others to build on these in whatever way the unfolding of any field goes. The spirit of creativity is incompatible with the spirit of orthodoxy.