energies of discourse

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Peter, I'm just cleaning up some old emails.
    I think I wrote something back in mid april that I was shy about sharing openly on 
email or in this forum... though I shared it.
      Then you responded (also to grouptalk) April 19, 2007 Re: article Sociatry
 Hi Adam,
    RE: So there's a sociometric dynamic: Can I object to this or that turn of statement 
without feeling that others will be overly angry? Thus does intemperate language affect 
the social field.   (I think that was my (adam's) question.
      Peter's response: In the hope of stating the obvious and in the hope of being 
wishy-washy and also in the hope of keeping this going a bit longer - Adam isn't this 
dynamic one of the, if not the main cultural controlling factor we become
 imbued with from our families and more especially our schools and other institutions.
    Adam: yes.
PH And the corollary -  If someone gets overly angry with me then I will be 
rejected/isolated/attacked etc. And then I am faced with the "psychotic fear of 
abandonment" as Bion put it.
          AB: I've always hated the way Bion and others tend to use catastrophic extremes 
to describe psychodynamics, when I think that most are a jumble of muted competing 
interactions of voices.
         My fear is that some folks will be so comfortable and ego-syntonic---i.e., they 
won't feel ashamed for it, or guilty--- about certain un-civil behaviors that they want to 
play at a level that I find equivalent to monkeys flinging feces. And I fear that this 
intensity of feeling will be viewed by some others as courageous rather than stupid and 
tacky. So I don't feel afraid to be abandoned, but rather I feel a bit sad that I would 
withdraw and it would be so unnecessary. It would be that the group has tolerated the 
degradation of civil discourse and even shared in the thrill of being rebellious. I've 
enjoyed my adolescent phase of cussing---well into my 30s, actually--- and now view it as 
I view my venture into smoking (pipes), as lower consciousness.

   PH: And I think you are well aware that there is no rationality without 
emotion/feelings. It is these feelings and emotions that drive us in a particular 
direction where our rationality then becomes applied.
     AB: Aha! This is what sublimation is about: As Freud noted, when the first caveman 
hurled a word of abuse instead of a spear, that was the beginning of civilization. The 
next step is to commit to being a bit more articulate. Your argument is specious because 
although affect heightens attention and lends relevance, emotion is a term that may 
involve an amplification of those affects; this amplification can range from mild to 
severe. There is no rational need for people to express arguments with great emotionality. 
It adds nothing to the discussion. It does add a non-verbal bullying element.
         So your point is perhaps 10% true, but the other 90% is misleading. It is the 
process of maturity to temper (in the sense of modulate) temper (in the sense of anger.

  PH How about we celebrate the ongoing development of a place (this forum) where 
participants are able to speak/present/respond in a less strictured  way?
        I know I respond when it happens. I think for two reasons - I like to see what 
others are moved by (it helps me to find my place and thinking in the world) and I love it 
that people are able to respond in a way that allows their thinking to then progress.
         Adam: I haven't seen any evidence that raising the heatedness of emotional 
discourse promotes any progress in thinking. More, emotional expressiveness often is 
associated with imprecision, overgeneralities, and other forms of rhetorical excess---also 
known as foolishness.

   PH  I mean this forum has to be one of  the safest group spaces around. I think we have 
enormous margins to make
 mistakes but only if we take them and don't get killed - metaphorically.
        AB  Hey, because I get all "senex archetype" to others' "puer archetype,"---  
because I act the fusty old schoolmarm when others enjoy taking the emotional 
adolescent--- that doesn't mean that I'm killing anyone; and, indeed, it seems more likely 
that I'll be challenged for being so up-tight. Certainly I don't have any authority in 
this forum, I'm just stating my preference and my sense of dismay when discourse 
deteriorates.

   PH How can we expect others to have great debates when we can't chew on each other's 
liver here?
             AB: It seems that great debates can only occur when and because we don't chew 
on each others' liver. But this may also be a cultural difference. My understanding is 
that many in Australia have a conversational style that is far more abrupt, 
confrontational, and thereby seemingly authentic.

 Cheers again   Peter   Cheers back, and I find your style really quite amenable to my 
preferred range of discussion. I'm certainly not seeking a rosy agreement and let's all 
make nice.  So thank you!  Warmly, Adam