scholarship and liveliness of mind

[Peter Howie]

Hi again Adam,

I've got myself into one of those times when there seems to be some  
serious work everyday of the week, for weeks on end. Fun but tiring  
and not so much left over for this stuff.

Having said that...

With regards to reifying or idealising Moreno I have a couple of  
reflections and a few comments. The comments are easy so lets start  
there..... come to think of it both areas are tough. So unfortunately  
I will still simplify but I hope you get the gist.

In relations to Moreno's writings I am reminded of two things : First  
is a quote perhaps apocryphal rather than true but related to Philip  
Adams (fam,ous local radio personality and philosopher) by Mikhail  
Gorbachev a few years ago when he was being asked about his revolution  
which opened up the USSR.

"You may know that your neighbours, the Chinese, who are not too far  
from you, years ago they invited a French delegation to come to China.  
That was when Premier Zhou Enlai was still alive. A young woman from  
that French delegation put this question to Zhou Enlai, 'Mr Premier,  
what is your assessment of the impact of the French Revolution on the  
world and, in particular, on China?' He answered very quickly, almost  
without missing a beat, he said, 'It is too early, it is too soon to  
tell,' and that was 170 years after the French Revolution."

And the second things is And the other is that it wasn't until 75  
years after the publishing of his theory of evolution that Darwin  
began to be influential.

This is all to say that much of what Moreno wrote, he was only  
describing the coat-tails of or the tail-end bit and there was a lot  
more connected to it. This is similar to a lot of profound writings  
that take more than unpackaging with a critical eye. They require life  
experience and life challenges to make more of. I think all of it  
requires to be taken further not the other way around. However the  
desire to take it further comes from a profound capacity to reverse  
roles with the man. This is somewhat problematic because, well, he  
isn't around in that traditional sense. But his idea of tele, as a  
thing, an actuality that connects us up one to another is a rather  
profound and troubling idea especially if we were to consider it less  
an idea and more a practical reality. So rather than Moreno the father  
more we could have Moreno to explorer. He opened up vast areas of the  
human universe and most of it is still lying idle. Some areas have  
been expended and stretched and mined. Others are still sitting there,  
as they were before he and other discussed them. Moreno was more into  
the ontological side of philosophy but at the same time was into the  
experiencing of being not just the understanding of it. Some of his  
challenges are rather Zen but what the hey! I am still contemplating  
some of the outrageous suggestions/provocations/challenges in his  
Theatre of Spontaneity (which I can't find at the moment as I must  
have lent it out). I am thinking of the one about (paraphrased) "God  
did it the first time and it was a stuff up and now we can do it again  
on the psychodrama stage and complete something."

This is another way of saying that I don't think many people are under  
his shadow because they would have to find it first. Here we are  
discussing the purpose of the writing as against the substance of the  
writing or the heart of the law as against the letter of the law.  
Often though we need to understand the letter of the law, the letters  
and words of Moreno in order to take the next steps. I am not so post- 
modern that I believe that the human world is without structure and  
boundaries. But I am not sure about others. Adam my favourite book at  
the moment (for the last 12 months actually) is "On being certain:  
believing you are right even when you are not" by Robert Burton and I  
hope to do a little critique and put it on my blog. This book is  
easier to read than Moreno but its implications are of a similar  
order. The implications will take and sensible person a long time to  
integrate and make sense of. This is my way of saying that the ideas  
are still in play. Substantially still in play.

Part of the dilemma with regards sticking with an idea way past its  
use-by-date has to do with cognitive dissonance. And another recently  
favourite book dealt with that called "Mistakes were made (but not by  
me)" by Tavris and Aronson. Like many books it is one idea stretched  
forever and applied to everything but they have done pretty well with  
it. I spent quite a few years in a spiritual group - way after I knew  
it was suspicious but I had made significant investments so I found I  
could with some ease reorganise myself to still feel OK about being in  
the group. Possibly explains some of my interest in the rubbery  
qualities of human thought and belief.

I am thinking we need a text book. Something with the basics  
explicated in some depth. A major work no doubt.

Cheers

Peter



Peter Howie B.Sc, TEP
Managing Director
The Moreno Collegium for Human Centred Learning, Research and  
Development
0411 873 851
www.morenocollegium.com.au




On 15/04/2009, at 12:37 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:

> Dear Peter, thanks for your kind words. In general I think you're  
> right. Last night I was reading Alfred North Whitehead's essay, "The  
> Aims of Education" (1912, presentation to an association of  
> educators), and he was passionate about his wanting a lively mind  
> and against the teaching of "inert ideas." What I'm getting at isn't  
> about Moreno, really, but rather trying to empower people to move  
> out from under his shadow and have the courage to improvise with  
> theory and technique, to explore, to be like Moreno in that way,  
> rather than through imitation of content.
>        So you pick up (as if you were an accurate double) some of my  
> feelings of mild desperation and an occasional slide into slight  
> grumpiness well. Your conjectures are valid, and so I was delighted  
> to see the recent anthology on theory. (Actually, I was the one who  
> around 2003 was approached first to do that, but because I was  
> working on the Interactive & Improvisational Drama book   { www.interactiveimprov.com/ 
>   }, I referred it to Manuela Maciel because of her many  
> international connections as head of the IAGP-PD section,  and she  
> brought in Jorge and Clark as co-editors.)
>
>    In the spirit of empowerment, it is not necessary that you know  
> all of Moreno's work to critique it: The focus should not be on the  
> idea that you're critiquing the whole of Moreno. That isn't  
> important. What is important is that this or that idea be sharpened,  
> extended, refined, re-thought, and so forth: What is important is  
> your feeling of being supported in being mentally fully alive,  
> curious, playful in the present moment.
>
>        I have been fascinated at seeing how powerful the pull of  
> heroic idealization can be; it serves to substitute for originality,  
> and allows oneself to be carried by one's loyalty or affiliation  
> with one's hero. All this is a form of Maya (the Hindu goddess of  
> illusion), sticky indeed. I get caught up this way in rooting for my  
> home team in football---every goal is a victory I feel, every goal  
> for the other side is a spasm of grief and frustration, even as part  
> of me is watching and wondering, smiling, noticing that it's all  
> illusion, the game, and more, my identification with it.
>
>    You're mistaken about my need for erudition; and I've given up on  
> any academic pretensions, alas. (I would like to see more  
> involvements by people trying to develop academic status because it  
> would raise the status of the field in the USA.) However, many if  
> not most academics can get dead-in-the-head in a way that's even  
> more stifling than non-academics. The illusion that one has learned  
> "enough" can be intellectually fatal.
>
>   I'm back-channeling this to you because I don't know if the group  
> wants to hear about the finer dimensions of my psyche. Perhaps these  
> are even somewhat annoying to many.  But thanks for your support and  
> friendliness. I like your stuff too. Do not be intimidated by your  
> lack of 100% knowledge of Moreno's stuff---it's not a requirement!!
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <peterhowie at advisor.co.nz>
> To: "grouptalk Listserv" <list at grouptalkweb.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 7:06 PM
> Subject: RE: re Moreno's greatness
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090427/9aa8177d/attachment.html>