"feet of clay" and the cannon of creativity

[Ivo Banaco]

Bravo Regina. If it wasn't clear my thoughts on the subject, you put it in a
brilliant way. Thank you.
Just a quick note to add that, in my opinion, we can't escape institutions,
structures, cultural conserves like religions, habits of some sort and so
on. The way you talk of religions for instance give the impression that they
are bad. In my opinion they are not as any kind of cultural conserve in
itself is not. The problem is the stuckness of the conserve, the inertia,
the rejection to move on in the natural process of evolution.

Ivo

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM, REGINA SEWELL <sewell.2 at osu.edu> wrote:

> Adam, Ivo,
>
> I am struck as I read your discussion about Moreno and the potential flaws
> in the theory or possible feet of clay because it reminds me of what Huston
> Smith says about Buddhism becoming an established "religion" or "practice"
> or at the very least, "system."  Religion, Smith argues, has six common,
> core aspects (what we would consider components of it's cultural conserve):
> * a structure of authority in which some people attain more knowledge or
> skill and are sought out by others for advice as well as the establishment
> of an institutional/organizational side; *ritual, especially for dealing
> with celebration and bereavement which functions to relieve a sense of
> isolation; * speculation about where we come from or where we are going; *
> tradition; * grace -- the belief that Reality is ultimately on our side;* a
> sense of mystery.
>
> Buddhism as originally set forth was almost entirely free from all of
> these.
>
> From what I understand, Moreno saw getting stuck in the cultural conserve
> problematic both for the individual (they become robotrons) and society
> (which gets stagnate and corrupt).  We are encouraged to be spontaneous
> something adequate in a new situation or somethind different and adequate in
> a familiar situation.  As I understand (I could be wrong so *please*
> correct me or fill in the blanks here) he was opposed to the
> institutionalization process we now have  with the board of examiners and
> the current certification process, etc.
>
> Part of the problem is that we live in a world that requires us to become
> ever more rational and effecient.  This means institutionalization almost
> had to have happened, just as it was inevitable for Buddhism.  And we find
> ourselves, strugglling with drawing from the cultural conserve because there
> is great value there, and creating new forms, new ideas, applying new
> theories, etc out of necessity in some cases, awareness that forms that were
> created in another time are not as relevant or at least realistic (ie 3 hour
> psychodramas in a therapeutic setting or the new information relating to
> brain neurobiology or the widespread availability of less than completely
> incapacitating pharmaceuticals) in other cases, and the spontaneity of the
> moment in other cases still.
>
> And in answer to any questions about psychodrama as a religion, I don't see
> psychodrama as a religion, though it certainly contains many of the
> components of religion listed by Smith.  And it seems to me that in some
> ways we are suffering from some of the malaise that mainstream protastant
> churches are suffering from in terms of dwindling membership that is
> becoming older and older w/ fewer young people jumping in to.  The other
> thing is that, like Buddhism is bigger now than the Buddha, psychodrama has
> grown beyond J.L.  We have many other people, including Zerka (who I think
> made more of a contribution than she often gets credit for)  who are
> continuing to make significant contributions to our understanding of the
> field.
>
> Peace,
> regina sewell, Ph.D.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090415/823baf49/attachment.html>