politics in action

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Ivo and grouptalk,
    Of course dialogue and interchange is (in the largest sense of the term) politics, which may also be considered the art of the possible. 

  I've been just recently reading David Bohm & F. David Peat's book, Science, order, and creativity. 1987, Bantam New Age. Very supportive of Moreno's ideals, without knowing about him.

    I was reminded of the archetypal functions of the "puer" (Latin for boy, referring to the spirit of innocent youth) and its creative tension with the "senex" (Latin for elder, referring to the spirit of  cautious experience). 
 
    In the interchange between Ed and me, for example, he is right in inviting us to explore creatively---as is Connie. I caution only that I would prefer a bit less over-enthusiasm in the nature of the claims made, such as confusing myth with fact. I prefer a middle ground of new ideas to be modified by some qualification, such as "in this context," or "to speak figuratively, not literally," and so forth. I experience discourse that lacks qualifications as misleading and/or arrogant. Yet with what seems to me to be a mild reservation, I really do want to encourage creative ideas. 

    A middle ground is the region of play. Again that qualification applies, the "What if?" attitude. I'm all for our playing in action, in dialogue, exploring---because the beauty of play is that there is some tentativeness to it. Even a "I've got an idea, lets..." is framed within a context in which (with kids, at least) an objection isn't necessarily to be judged as "rigidity" or "you're no fun" but rather as an invitation to modify the original idea. "Okay, then, let's also ... "  There's room to maneuver and no one is making final judgments---and there are even levels of the kinds of reality that are being addressed---play or "objective" reality. 

      That's one of my objection to parts of new age discourse: There's a tendency to act by some folks as if we know what we are talking about, in some final, ultimate way. I've talked to the higher angels (this part is playful and figurative!) and they've told me that as many discoveries and paradigm shifts that have happened in the last three hundred years will happen again in the next three hundred years, so it might be presumptious to come to more than provisional conclusions. 

        Now, more to your point about political fight: Do I understand, though, that this is the point of your message---to recognize that it is better to identify more sharply where there is disagreement?  If so, I agree.

    However, to characterize it as a fight comes across a little harsh, because in my mind it is no more angry or hostile or fighting than my wife and I discussing where we should place a picture on a wall as we decorate our house---a little higher, lower,  maybe on that wall instead?  Now in fact, this is political---there is a continuing process of exploring whose idea is better, mixed with other political moves---i.e., tact, diplomacy, appreciations for areas of agreement, etc. 

      What do you think?   Warmly, Adam



 ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ivo Banaco 
  To: Peter Howie 
  Cc: Group talk Listserv 
  Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:36 AM
  Subject: Re: PINEAL GLAND (2)


  Dear Peter, Adam, Connie, Ed and all,


  Let's awaken up the implicit here. Let us not pretend that this recent dynamic exchange of e-mails doesn't exist. This is politics in-action in the Group talk list. At least I feel in this way, I don't know if anybody feel the same. I am only speaking for myself. There is nothing wrong with "political arguments", what is wrong, in my opinion, is letting the implicit stay there, not generating an explicit output.


  What I am trying to say in objective terms and in a reconstructive fashion is: Ed starts a tread with a certain topic: Pineal Gland. To use again Hegel's thesis and antithesis terms we had the first reply of Connie using a more spiritual emphasis (the thesis) to make sense of the topic and a more "rational" response of Adam (antithesis). 


  If this happens to be a good description of that dynamic, what followed next was a "political fight" in the best sense of the word. But let us assume that, genuinely and directly, and not pretend that this isn't happening. At least in "real" politics, albeit all the bad things in it, they have political parties, constant dialectical arguments, making their differences crystal clear. 


  For me, this last e-mail of Peter (whom I don't know but it doesn't inhibit me to engage with him an intellectual argument), with due respect, doesn't say virtually nothing unless for supporting Adam's answer. Or to put it differently, it has a lot of content (and a good one I must say), but the material is used in an implicit way, in a political correctness that I must admit annoys me sometimes. What do you, Peter, are defending in this topic, I mean clearly, and not from your comfort zone? just that "the pineal is well and truly in the dark". Are you saying that it's not possible to say more about it? 


  With care and good intentions,
  Ivo 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090115/de91b1d8/attachment.html>