what exists

[Adam Blatner]

Hi all, of course in the simpler way of speaking, recognizing a general phenomenon and offering a meaningful category for it, of course spontaneity, play, and other things exist. In a general way I absolutely concede that! 

     But there is a tendency in psychology to "re-ify" or make a thing out of an abstraction, like honor, etc., and then to treat it as if it can be clearly defined, boundaries neatly drawn, almost that it could be found as a physical structure somewhere in the brain. What I was meaning was that in the realms of mind, society, culture, words have fuzzy boundaries, they are used in different ways, and trying too hard to pin something down can distort its dynamic vitality. This is why ecology supersedes mere anatomy.
     Some folks have treated superego, id, ego, other "structures" as if they were things, and that's the problem. I'm not trying to get overly philosophical, but just to help us be aware of the ambiguity of many of the concepts we use. And that doesn't mean I criticize or value them less, but rather I'm trying to keep us open to "wiggle room," to the awareness that naming isn't the same as a perfect description. 

         As for play existing in a pure state, that's my point. A child spinning around is playing with dizziness; with jumping, well, playing with the possibilities of gravity versus muscle, with legs and feet, there's a game in jumping. Playing in the waves, exploring the properties of that medium. Messing with art materials, well, that is exploring with those materials. The closest thing to pure play is still not pure, which is allowing random movements with fingers and fingerpaint---but it doesn't register as fun unless there's a visual feedback system noticing the patterns that come from such explorations. 

     Mere wiggling without feedback can be mere neurological activity... without a context and some feedback it isn't play.

Existence is a problem only for those who think that category means that we must be able to measure, weigh, specify exactly, and / or who take the abstraction into usages that limit possibilities. Do I exist?  On one level, most certainly. On another level, since I cannot specify my own boundaries, depth, or constancy, the question is moot (that is, if an answer must be quite precise.)   So in a sense, all I'm doing is being open to non-precision, not-perfect-definability, and recognizing that this is just fine.

       Finally, there is a category, the archetype, that "exists" with quotation marks only as a way of recognizing patterns and commonalities in the myriad forms it takes as "archetypal images." Without the drawing, the sculpture, the ritual, the behavior, the concrete form or action in reality, the archetype cannot exist independently. (Maybe existing independently is a useful modifier.)  It's analogous to what Plato called "eternal objects" which, ironically, are the farthest thing from object because they require some cultural format for their expression. 

   Sorry for the philosophical squirming. The feedback you all give me is useful in helping me to recognize that most folks don't give up easily on the more common-sense approach to words. My point is only that words can fool you. That's the whole point of semantics.   Warmly, Adam

     
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: HV Psychodrama 
  To: Adam Blatner ; Bud Weiss 
  Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:40 AM
  Subject: Re: spontaneity, inhibition


  Spontaneity doesn't exist....that is like saying creativity doesn't exist, yes? Or imagination? or a sense of well being? I don't understand why you say it doesn't exist..because  it can't be seen? touched? 

  As for play, I don't that I agree that Play doesn't exist. Look at otters.  Unlike other animal babies whose play  prepares the young animal for their adult role, otters create and slide down mud slides for no purpose other than play. And they do it as adults, not just as babies. 
      It is true that much of children's make believe play is essentially role training, playing at various roles, learning to handle a variety of situations, etc and it is a very valuable part of their education. but there is also imaginary play that isn't about this. There is  play for no other purpose than just joy.  Think of children running and jumping..what are they playing at? Or adults playing in the waves at the ocean. Or messing about with art materials with no purpose in mind? Isn't that play?

  I suppose it is a matter of definition.
  Rebecca

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Adam Blatner 
    To: Bud Weiss ; HV Psychodrama 
    Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org 
    Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 3:07 PM
    Subject: spontaneity, inhibition


    Hi all,   Thanks Rebecca, for bringing this research up, and Bud, for broadening the discussion! 

    Dan Goleman in 1995 wrote about Emotional Intelligence, in which he noted the idea that in states of emotional arousal, the limbic system takes over, there is a general inhibition of the flow of neural impulses from the more reflective, rational, and also creatively inspired frontal lobes (plus other sources), and as the research Rebecca notes, there is a retreat to fight flight, or in a milder sense, a re-running of well-worn habits of thinking, familiar beliefs are clung to more strongly, and so forth. Yes, I agree that this translates to low spontaneity. 

        Bud's allusion to other approaches to reducing stress and conflict speaks to a host of approaches that express the gradual penetration of psychology into mainstream culture. I'm a little intrigued by "energy parenting" and wonder how it differs from Dreikurs' classic, Children, the Challenge,  published sixty or more years ago by the major exponent of Adlerian psychology in America. (He was also sympathetic to psychodrama and encouraged Adaline Starr in her work. Raymond J. Corsini was a part of ASGPP back then and also promoted an integration of Adlerian and psychodramatic ideas.) 

        I'm all for sociatry as a grand idea, but think it should be expanded to include all forms of modern education, social action, and even recreation that have as a side-effect if not the primary goal the development of consciousness, imagination, spontaneity, communications, etc. 

       The neat thing about spontaneity and creative thinking and types of research that relate to them is that it penetrates almost everything in psychology; and in turn, it is affected by all manner of psychopathological and sociopathological dynamics (including cultural oppression). A recent insight I had regarding the nature of play (in warming up to revising my book, The Art of Play) is that there's no such thing as play. One plays at this or that subject-matter, it's the manner of doing, the style of lubrication. But play itself doesn't exist. (In that sense, there are other constructs in psychology that operate near the archetypal level, requiring certain contents, subject matter, cultural forms, in order to be manifest.)
              
               Spontaneity itself doesn't exist, I suspect. One can approach dance, or art, conversation, or even meditation with more or less spontaneity.
                         what do you think of this? It's still baby-new so be gentle.   Warmly, Adam     
      ----- Original Message ----- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090824/bb7e1221/attachment.html>