psychosocial development

[Ivo Banaco]

Hi Adam, Peter and all,

**

Adam I think that your post was really inspiring. It is always a great
pleasure to read you. Peter I hope that you don't get me wrong but I don't
agree about your interpretation of Adam's post although I think you have
some good points that are not in conflict with Adam's ideas. If you have the
patience to read my not so good English (God bless you for that) I'll try to
explain my thoughts:



Adam: "*Rational suggests to me that a person thinks about life, politics,
love, etc. with (I'm making this up) at least 55% rationality. I don't think
most folks do much more than 34% and much of that is about ordinary life
requirements like figuring out the rational sequences in cooking breakfast
or driving a car" *

* *

55% of rationality means, in my view, that a person is not addressing a
particular problem with only the rational side. It's impossible and Adam
knows that, so it is not an issue for me. Again, healthy development is to
transcend for new vistas, new perspectives and include appropriately the
previous ones – maybe that's one possible definition of normality; so in a
loose sense we have genetic predispositions, instincts, emotions and various
types of rationality that can be considered being above those earlier
stages. Peter mentioned Antonio Damasio, which develops an objective
approach (brain approach) in his 3 majors' books: Descartes's error, The
Feeling of What Happen, and Looking for Spinoza. His understanding of human
brain and behaviour is great but he falls short to realize the implications
of his research in other fields (I think he is aware of that but are letting
others to take his work to another level). Neuro-psychoanalysis is
definitely a way that Damasio is supporting…



* *

*Adam: *

    *I think the real gift of psychoanalysis, beyond the 74% misleading
particulars of early dogma / theory, is the deeper sensibility of calling
oneself into question, of knowing---really knowing deeply---that one is
afflicted with temptations to be less-than-rational*…

*        True maturation involves knowing distinctly that this process is
operating and instituting a psychological program of quality assurance, of
pro-active error-maintenance.*



In other words, this process evolves a development of our Awareness. I view
awareness as a measure of our own consciousness. It encompasses rationality,
emotions, instincts and even spirituality. We can be a child again, a lover
again, an irrational again, we can be spontaneous. We can be whatever we
want but if we don't have awareness we are simply foolish persons,
unconscious people, sick human beings. Awareness could free us for the real
choices we have to make in life.



Peter:

*Irrationality is usually a judgment of another that includes them missing
some of the date the person they are judging is using.

*

It's not some flashing news but when we judge others we are exactly what we
judge – it is an astonishing psycho-mathematical process. So if we judge
acts or persons for being irrational, deeply we know that we too could act
or do in the same way. But it is important to distinguish judgments from
discernment. Ideally every psychotherapists should make discernment's about
their clients…not judgments…(I will really appreciate if someone could
develop more this point…)



Best,

Ivo


On 4/2/08, Peter Howie <peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au> wrote:
>
> Dear Adam,
>
> A bit of a rave - hope you enjoy it - I call it a rave because it is
> largely without reference.
>
> I can follow you argument. I think though that there is a fallacy in your
> structure and I have seen it elsewhere. Most recently in a highly readable
> and recommendable book called "Predictably Irrational". The fallacy to me is
> that when you use the term rational you have not only a particular meaning
> of rational but you have a narrow definition of the data upon which a person
> can be rational or have rational considerations about. It is as though
> rationality can and does exist in a wonderful rationality space. Dimaso has
> a great book where he plays with this area called "Descartes error". Anyway
> - my rave is that it is essentially irrational not to consider the
> centrality of emotion, feelings, and other things that might fall into the
> area of sociometry like tele etc. Irrationality is usually a judgment of
> another that includes them missing some of the date the person they are
> judging is using.
>
> I think it is often but probably not always - though it could be always -
> it is often the case that what appears irrational only appears that way when
> certain other factrs (feelings, beliefs, concerns, worries, delusions etc)
> are left out. Once these other factors are brought back in then there can be
> a high degree of rationality in the way a person chooses how to act. Now
> there is definitely a flow between thought and feeling - our dear departed
> RET man whose name escapes me, he played long with this areas as well. He
> played with how rationality led a person into blind alleys because they have
> some peculiar belief. Now all belief is peculiar. Including he ones I am
> demonstrating here.
>
> That's enough for now. My main premise - all of us work as rationally as
> we can given our training and our peculiar world views, feelings and belief
> structures. This is the creativity of the human being. Finding out what
> their own unique sources of data are, is important to decide about
> rationality.
>
> Cheers for a moment
>
> Peter in Brisbane
>
>
>
>
>
> At 02:02 PM 4/1/2008 -0500, Adam Blatner wrote:
>
> Howdy Ivo and all,
>
>     I am moved to respond and expand on the end of Ivo's email yesterday
> (see below-- and mainly the last paragraph of his email and the poem-song
> lyric).
>      I have become increasingly dis-illusioned (not altogether a bad
> thing---by no means cynicism--just loss of idealizing illusions) about what
> constitutes normality. I've demoted most people from rational to marginally
> and intermittently rational---a major difference. Rational suggests to me
> that a person thinks about life, politics, love, etc. with (I'm making this
> up) at least 55% rationality. I don't think most folks do much more than 34%
> and much of that is about ordinary life requirements like figuring out the
> rational sequences in cooking breakfast or driving a car. Even then there is
> a surprising degree of lapse of true logic.
>     In other words, I find that the major feature of psychology in most
> people to be a variation of compensation: It is as if the program says, "If
> I can maintain an appearance of being grown-up, reasonable, mature, and
> competent, then the real game is how far can I go in indulging in all the
> opposite elements while keeping up that appearance?" The answer is: Lots.
> People can be amazingly (appallingly) unreasonable, immature, incompetent,
> flaky, and insert all these regressions in the service of the id in the
> nooks and crannies between just enough grown-up gestures and seemingly adult
> statements so that the appearance is maintained---as well as the conscious
> illusion (or, perhaps better, delusion?) that one is in fact a grown-up,
> responsible citizen.
>     I think the real gift of psychoanalysis, beyond the 74% misleading
> particulars of early dogma / theory, is the deeper sensibility of calling
> oneself into question, of knowing---really knowing deeply---that one is
> afflicted with temptations to be less-than-rational, and one gives in to
> these temptations at least some not-insignificant proportion of the time.
> I'm not talking about regression in the service of the ego, of consciously
> chosen times to indulge the inner child. I'm talking about when there is
> unconsciousness about this regressive process.
>
>         True maturation involves knowing distinctly that this process is
> operating and instituting a psychological program of quality assurance, of
> pro-active error-maintenance. In other words, know that you are inclined to
> sacrifice true rational goals in the quest for short-term illusory goals,
> that this occurs in a hundred subtle different ways, and the best we can do
> is to learn to detect and minimize these lapses to a gradually increasing
> degree. (I figure I bring down my folly at a rate of 1-2% per year in the
> last forty years, but that's required continuous self-analysis, aided by my
> wife who offers loving yet critical feedback as we review matters.)
>
>          As to the song lyric or quasi poem cited below, that involves
> another complex---related, but more insidious: The capacity also to lose
> grounding, to lose meaning. I question that the protagonist has in fact been
> searching---or if he has, it's been an illusion, the kind of effort a surly
> teenager says when he sulkily yells, "Leave me alone! I'll work this out on
> my own." What this maneuver does is offer the illusion that one is working
> meaningfully on an issue when in fact all is going on is episodes of
> self-pitying rumination mixed with other moments of escape and avoidance.
> Real work requires that bringing to the surface of consciousness process
> that involves having a live, slightly critical (in contrast to enabling)
> audience, such as a therapist. Can you admit your secrets openly to another
> and review them in the space of consensual reality (rather than the inner
> space of subjective reality---a space prone to self-delusion)?
>
>    Anyway, I wanted to share this contemplation---thanks for stimulating
> my thinking, Ivo. Warmly, Adam
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Ivo Banaco <ibanaco at gmail.com>
> To: Adam Blatner <adam at blatner.com>
> Cc: Peter Howie <peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au> ; Rosa Cukier<rosa at cukier.com.br>;
> list at grouptalkweb.org
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: child development and world realization
>
> In healthy development, as Robert Kegan refers, the subject of one stage,
> becomes the object of the subject of the next stage. Everybody born at level
> 0 and than…well than everything human can happen. But one thing we don't
> need is to absolutize a particular level of existence as being the most
> important level. All the development dynamic is important as we transcend
> and include lower levels of existence embracing newer ones. When Peter says
> "the child is interested in world realisation... and it is us that stop at
> self-realisation" it seems that "us" and "the child" are two different
> entities. This can in fact be true when our development is repressing lower
> levels where pathologies enter in this story. But this is different than
> saying that us, adult bad guys, don't aim for world realisation, just
> self-realisation. Does the child really aim world realisation. We have to
> define very well what we mean by "world realisation". In my opinion, the
> child cannot be interested in world realisation because simply the child
> level, in a loose sense, is an egocentric stage of development with no good
> understanding about what others think and feel - in this phase it lacks
> multiple perspectives. However the child is magical, the child is typically
> spontaneous, definitely one of the things we have to preserve as we go along
> in our own development.
>
>
> I think Moreno, as Jung and others genius of our modern time, tended to
> make a subtle but important fallacy that sometimes is called the pre/post
> fallacy. To put it simply, this is the mistake of elevating pre-conventional
> wisdom to the ultimate glory; it is the return to the child spontaneity or
> magic thinking that is the goal and not an embrace of our own child as a
> fundamental part of our being.
>
> Although of course, we have to put things in context: One of the real
> problems of relatively normal adults is that they in fact repressed those
> magical inner wisdom, embracing a cold rationality (even Freud was caught up
> with that, or at least could not solve that problem with his system) and a
> conventional and for some post-conventional thought) and one of the genius
> of Moreno was to manage to put adults to dream again, to be spontaneous
> again, reowning parts that we repressed early on.
>
>
> A man lies in his bed in a room with no door
> He waits hoping for a presence something anything to enter
> After spending half his life searching he still felt as blank
> As the ceiling at which he stared
> He is alive but feels absolutely nothing
> So is he?
> When he was six he believed that the moon overhead followed him
> By nine he had deciphered the illusion trading magic for fact
> No tradebacks...
> So this is what it's like to be an adult
> If he only knew now what he knew then...
>
> Lying sideways atop crumpled sheets and no covers he decides to
> dream...
> Dream up a new self for himself...
>
> Lyrics: Eddie Vedder  leading vocals of the American music band Pearl Jam
>
>
> On 3/30/08, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:
> Dear Peter,  you wrote 3/28/08  ... "Moreno suggested in one of his books
> on Sociometry that - something like - " the child is not interested in
> self-realisation - the child is interested in world realisation"... and it
> is us that stop at self-realisation."
>
>     ab: I don't remember Moreno saying this, but I haven't pored over
> Moreno's writings that carefully. I find so much of what he says to be
> redundant, over-blown, excessive. Yet there are many gems scattered about!
> True wisdom or at least the seeds of valid insight.
>
>          So it's an excellent point you and perhaps Moreno make.
>
> However, the term "self-realization" (it's spelled with a z in the USA) is
> misleading, I think. Self is such a, well, selfish, egocentric term.
>
> Yes, there are those who try to expand it, talk about expanding the self
> by putting a capital S in front of it and making it seem like our Greater
> Source or something. I don't object to that idea so much as the need to stay
> with the word "self."
>          The Committee of Angels who are arranging my life (there are
> perhaps 30 - 50 of them, I estimate---playful imaginitation-wise) are part
> of that complex that overlaps with "my" creative unconscious (is it mine,
> really?); and they, we, the greater flow, well, it unfolds and it doesn't
> really require that I tease out how much They have done and how much "I did
> it my way" (as Frank Sinatra sang it).
>      But self is too narrow.
>
>         World realization? Well, I don't think kids are doing
> world-realization. They don't have a wide-enough circle of caring, enough
> maturity or sophistication. Indeed, I think relatively few adults even
> imagine this goal.
>
>        But I do think there's a germ of an idea, which is that neither are
> kids as egocentric as Freud seemed to imply. They just want the whole game
> to be fun, and if that includes having nicer trees, and cleaner air, if that
> includes having other healthy kids to play with and mom and dad not
> worrying, if that includes having interesting toys and a sense that the
> world is a peaceful, safe, fun place to grow up, well, all that is included.
>
>
> So the terms, "Self-realization" or "World-Realization" doesn't capture it
> for me.
>
>    Aside from "self," "realization" is also a problematic term for me,
> because I'm not about to agree with anyone (much less myself) about any
> statement about reality. Realization in the sense of really having reality
> become more real... it becomes pardoxical and nonsense.
>      Realization in the sense of achieving its full potential?  Maybe, as
> Amazing Grace verse says, "When we've been there ten thousand years, bright
> shining as the sun..."
>         But as for now, I perceive humanity to be somewhere between the
> equivalent of six to fourteen years old in its overall maturity as a
> species. Old enough to think it knows what it's doing, young enough to
> easily give in to childish and savage temptations. Civilized? Only the
> veneer of civilization and some few protected islands.
>
>    Anyway, your point is good and important, that we should recognize
> child development as being more than just egocentric. This is also in
> keeping with what the Humanistic Psychology movement was trying to say.
>
>           Warmly, Adam
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Howie <peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>
> To: list at grouptalkweb.org
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Role Reversal, etc. (response to Peter H)
>
>
> Dear Ivo,
>
> First up I am not a Wilber fan or anti-fan. But I wanted to put a small
> counter to his idea of the 3 major development levels from a Morenian
> perspective. Maybe not a Morenian perspective but a Morenian expression at
> least.  I think also implied is that the child with all their capacity for
> spontaneity and creativity is pegged back to only self-realisation.  This I
> guess has more to do with the interests of the child - while what you are
> bringing up is the capacities of the child - but interesting nonetheless.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter  Howie
> www.morenocollegium.com.au
>
>
> 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.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1350 - Release Date: 3/30/2008
> 12:32 PM
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080402/23f9253d/attachment.html