creativity.. continued

[Adam Blatner]

Adam: I agree with Ivo, and much (but not all) of what Regina says: Comments below:
 From: Ivo Banaco To: REGINA SEWELL Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org ; Adam Blatner Sent: April 15, 2009
 Subject: Re: "feet of clay" and the cannon of creativity            AB: it should be spelled canon, a body of work or doctrine about which there is some broad consensus or official imprimatur

Ivo: 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 
     ab: agree. The contemporary philosopher Ken Wilber has made a similar point in his recent book, Integral Spirituality. While forms of religion may be found wanting in light of contemporary ideas, the essence of spiritual intelligence won't go away. (Nor is this dynamic restricted more to one religion over others.) The game is to help the whole approach of meaning and relationship to the cosmos to evolve along with our highest capacities for understanding.
         (responding to)
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. 
              AB: My definition of religion is that it is the social organization of the spiritual impulse. What is described above are mixtures of spiritual themes and socially-agreed-on approaches to respond to those themes. Those approaches, though, are adapted to the time and culture where they arise.

Regina continues: 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.
      AB: right

RS:  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.  
       AB: Questionable: He himself ran his own operation of granting directorships, running an organization, and he did it pretty much as he felt like it. 
        The cultural circumstances that suggested that a certification process was appropriate involved a reaction to the way people then and still today appropriate bits and pieces and large chunks of psychodrama, integrate it with their own style, get little or know actual training from Moreno or Moreno-trained professionals, and call it psychodrama. In other words, Moreno was successful enough to lose control of his baby, and if he saw what folks were doing (and certainly if Zerka saw it) they would flip. So it's a political trade-off. (It annoys me how people want our politicians to come up with solutions with no trade-offs---a parental transference!)  If there's no certification, then anyone can call him/herself a psychodramatist and who can object? If there is certification, one can complain because of the constraints. 
        If you have any ideas about how the Board could do a better job: or if you were queen, how you would deal with the problems that arise because there is no certification; please, come up with specific alternatives. The Board of Examiners might be open to considering them! 

RS: Part of the problem is that we live in a world that requires us to become ever more rational and efficient. 
           AB: In light of the scandals associated with the collapse of the economy, and from what I said before, perhaps the problem is not the easy targets of rational/ efficient, but rather the rampant practice of sub-clinical if not overt fraud and corruption; the problem of hypocrisy and self-delusion about competence. 

RS:  This means institutionalization almost had to have happened, just as it was inevitable for Buddhism.
              AB: For different reasons, the problem is also quality control: If you ran a McDonald's Corporation, how would you feel if one of your franchises declared pseud-independence, put itself forward as offering "Real McDonald's Fast Food" but had standards of hygiene that were waaay below your own, obtained contaminated supplies at half-price from China, etc.?  
        So "institutionalization" is a semantic hot point, suggesting it's a bad thing. What if it's a necessary complement to large organizations. Without it, no large organizational structures can function at all?

RS:  And we find ourselves, struggling 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.   

AB: I think I agree with you, if what you're saying is that creativity must go on beyond that which is conserved, and that it is often good stuff.

  RS  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.  
            AB: What I like here is that there is value in Ed's trying to mine Moreno's work for its gems---though I would like to see more interpretation and connection to relevant points, more explanations. And also there is value in reading the work of the post-Moreno writers. 
      
Thanks, Regina, Ivo, and all,   Warmly, Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090415/f746b52b/attachment.html>