thank you

Wed Jun 10 17:06:11 CDT 2009

Dear Thana, Adam, Peter
I am deeply moved by your responses to me. My desire for competence and
perfection run deep and often painfully. Having you engage in this
conversation with me with warmth, sensitivity and clear thinking affects
me a great deal. Your comments and Regina's too, help me to shift some
of the rigidity of my desire to understand.

My father told a story about me:  As small child I visited the museum
and had been fascinated by the drawers full of insects. Shortly after
the museum visit my father walked into our kitchen to find a grasshopper
pinned to a cereal box and was most startled to find it still alive and
wriggling. The desire to "pin things down" is still with me but I
currently feel no need to stab the poor grasshopper, and instead
anticipate the pleasure of enjoying them living free in my garden. I am
still very curious about what they do and why, and wanting to look at
them closely and understand how they are what they are.

Warm regards and thank you
from Jenny

thana ag wrote:
> Hi Jenny,
> Peter put it well.
> While I can very neatly formulate what  and why I have done in any
> particular session,and require same  of my students-the truth is that it
> was my intuitive mind that guided me mostly,and the rational mind lagged
> behind,though not too far,At the end: the description of a  seemlessly
> run psychodrama ,how choices were made in split second etc- makes a
> novice feel:I can't  do it.Nor can we. ( nthe experienced ones)The
> description is after the fact.
> On a gentler note:
> "Do not fear perfection. You will never reach it"-Salvador Dali
> warmly,
> anath garber
>> From: ablatner at verizon.net
>> To: jenny at blennerhassett.gen.nz; peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au;
> list at grouptalkweb.org
>> Subject: role theory 10 June-adam
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:12:25 -0500
>>
>> Hi pals, I'll weigh in with comments.
>> I think I agree with Peter's ideas on the whole, and certainly his
> general
>> sensibility. I think I use the role concept more while I'm working,
> but in a general
>> way---imagining scenarios and alternative ways people might be responding.
>>
>> Let's address Jenny's email first: I believe I am caught in the middle
> of a
>> philosophical dilemma: On one hand the spirit of psychodrama embraces
> all realities and a
>> major part of the method (perhaps the major part therapeutically) is
> to fully enter into
>> the world of the protagonist. In this context all realities seem to be
> accepted as valid
>> and real. Reading the excepts from your blog and Adams comments 1/6/09
> I am reminded of
>> how rich and full of possibilities this way of being is, and how much
> I love this aspect
>> of psychodrama. The excitement and playfulness of psychodrama come
> alive in your writing.
>> On the other hand psychodrama is moving towards a more clearly defined
>> professional identity with writing assignments, thesis, and practical
> assessments becoming
>> more important and marking transition from one level to the next and
> eventually resulting
>> in a significant qualification. These assignments are assessed against
> some criteria - but
>> the criteria are far from clear to me. Understanding role theory is a
> significant
>> component of ANZPA requirements - present in the social and cultural
> atom paper and the
>> presentation following practical assessment.My experience to date
> indicates to me that
>> some realities regarding role theory are closer to what is required
> than others but are
>> not clearly stated as such, and shift depending on who is doing the
> assessing and
>> teaching. Not a problem in practice but anxiety provoking when heading
> off for assessment!
>>
>> AB: My reading is that Jenny is intuitively sensitive to the mixture
> of levels
>> involved in a penetrating view of psychology: On one hand, a good
> psychology is broad,
>> including even dimensions about which we barely understand. This is
> true also of science.
>> On the other hand, like science, it also focuses at times, attempting
> to be more precise.
>> In doing so, it must recognize that a number of frontiers are ignored
> or minimized because
>> we lack the tools and techniques for assessing all edges of not just
> what we know, but
>> also what we intuit as being present but not yet able to be
> investigated. Examples, deep
>> consciousness, altered states of consciousness, spiritual experiences,
> psychic
>> experiences, a fair amount of sociometry, etc.
>>
>> JW I know that a great deal of my exploration of the question of role
> is driven by
>> anxiety. To be assessed and found competent (or not) in an undefinable
> construct where all
>> realities are valued seems to be an enormous paradox to me. Making the
> paradox clearer has
>> been useful, reduces my anxiety even, as I realise that what is not
> known by me is also
>> not clear in the minds of others. Overcoming some fantasy that somehow
> others understand
>> how this all fits together but somehow I do not. Your haiku made me
> smile and reminded me
>> to try and hold all this more lightly.
>> AB: Words like assess and define seem to imply that a level of
> precision has been
>> mastered by others, and this is not so.
>>
>> Here's another way to think: Scene is a case conference of
> professionals. If X presents a
>> case formulation, would X's teacher feel that presentation is
> plausible enough so that the
>> teacher wouldn't feel humiliated? This is the criteria I use for
> grading exams. I can say
>> right now, Jenny, that your capacity to be articulate and coherent
> puts you well into the
>> category of those who would pass. You may not get every concept
> perfectly, but you're
>> evidently bright and conscientious, and you communicate this
> well---and all this stuff
>> must be recognized as being relative to others with whom you are compared.
>>
>> I recognize within my own mind that there is a great deal I don't
> know. My confidence has
>> grown only in that I have become aware that compared to many others in
> my general age
>> group and status, I do fine. In other words, there is a big category
> known as "good
>> enough" that allows for less-than-perfect.
>>
>> JS So far I have got clearer that I can work with roles on the stage
> even if writing
>> about roles is difficult. I agree with you about role theory having
> most effect when
>> working with an individual or group. Thankfully I don't get so bogged
> down with all this
>> thinking while in action these days.
>> The personal crucible of facing assessment has brought this paradox
> into sharp focus
>> for me, however I imagine this paradox exists and will continue for
> the psychodrama
>> community in any attempt to evaluate and write about the method. So
> all good grist for the
>> mill.
>> AB: That word assessment is very ambiguous. Think of it rather as
> having a
>> working and somewhat plausible hypothesis. The grave secret in the
> general field of
>> counseling is that it's my impression that over half of the practicing
> counselors today
>> could not readily answer a question (even generally) about "what do
> you think is going on
>> with this client?" (See my paper on case formulation. So answering
> that question
>> perfectly is a fair distance from answering it in a somewhat plausible
> fashion.
>>
>> Like Peter (I think), when I work, I hold my formulations tentatively,
> and revise them
>> as new information comes in. I question the semantic implication of
> the word
>> "assessment"---whether it can be anywhere near complete or definitive.
> Rather, I imagine
>> it to be more than just groping in the dark, a somewhat plausible
> strategy. But as it's
>> tested, the assessment becomes more specific.
>>
>> Also, the mind is so vast that there cannot be a full assessment. A
> month's time spent
>> doing interviews and psychological tests wouldn't suffice to capture
> the fullness of a
>> person. The assessment then needs to be focused to a certain sphere of
> function and
>> dysfunction. What's wrong here, and what strengths might be available
> to correct this
>> problem?
>>
>> ... or am I not getting your point? That's possible too. Warmly, Adam
>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
>> > Peter Howie wrote:
>> >> Hi Jenny,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for this. I did mean to send it to grouptalk - I keep
> missing the
>> >> way it works. Maybe I will post it there anyway. You might have a
>> >> different response by then.
>> >>
>> >> My guess is that you have some well defined learning preferences
> and how
>> >> we teach and supervise with role theory hasn't suited this, so far.
>> >>
>> >> I am developing a very tentative hypothesis that you have an idea that
>> >> others (the great and glorious ones) are able to use role theory in the
>> >> moment, while they are working in dramas and other settings, able to
>> >> make stuff up off the top of their heads, see stories clearly and
>> >> immediately or near enough able to develop adequate role names and the
>> >> like. Is this correct? I think I make it clear in my blog that I
> find it
>> >> of most use after the fact. And if I talk about a person in a role in
>> >> supervision this is very much after the fact.
>> >>
>> >> Also on another point - and it might have been in your expression
> rather
>> >> than intent. I don't find that all realities need to be accepted as
>> >> valid or real. However I do need to accept the protagonist/client/other
>> >> person/colleague and accept that as far as they have presented that
> they
>> >> believe it is real and valid. So I am accepting them rather than their
>> >> reality. And this is also a pretty major aspect of the method. The
>> >> capacity to enter the other's world and re-enter my own.
>> >>
>> >> I am off to aikido - cheers for the moment
>> >>
>> >> Shall we go public?
>> >>
>> >> 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 08/06/2009, at 4:11 PM, Jenny Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Peter (I'm not sure whether to post this on grouptalk or not - as
>> >>> you sent to me I will just respond to you)
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you for your thoughtful response to my
> questions/reflections. I am
>> >>> really appreciating getting some different perspectives on this.
>>>> Anyway - thanks
>> >>> for reading/responding. I will have a look at your blog
>> >>> shortly but not tonite as busy.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jenny
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Grouptalk mailing list
>> > List at grouptalkweb.org
>> > http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>>
>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.60/2166 - Release Date:
> 06/09/09 18:08:00
>>
>>
>> Grouptalk mailing list
>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
> Check it out.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009>