grouptalk discussions
Adam Blatner
adam at blatner.com
Sat Jan 19 10:03:20 CST 2008
Dear Ed, while I certainly want to release you from any sense of obligation to engage in serious discussion on grouptalk, and do not presume to feel entitled to a response, I really don't consider the discussions on this site to be "fly-by-night." I have put serious thought into trying to understand and respond reasonably to various ideas. Perhaps I've been mistaken and have approached our listserve too seriously.
There is a certain kind of discourse that operated in the last few hundred years in the form of letters, thought-out phrases, correspondence back and forth among colleagues. Admittedly, much both then and now can be trivialized in post-cards, joking greeting cards, sentimental love letters, and a host of even more simplistic text messages: whassup. howru? kay. .. etc. But there's also a nice literature derived from men and women in science and the humanities, considering the state of the world.
While oral presentations can be occasions for exciting discourse, compelling ideas merit the virtues of written communication, too: In that form they can be considered, edited, revised, built on, developed, refined. They are not meant to be revered as a cultural conserve, but rather built upon.
Informality and formality are interesting categories, perhaps with different mental associations. I'm not sure what you mean. I like the possibility of having my thoughts expressed, open to finding I need to change the wording when I realize, with the help of a back-and-forth discussion, that I may have overstated my case, or used misleading terms. To me, formal seems so "one-way, this is the final edition, take it or leave it"---sort of associated with standing at a lectern with a tuxedo on.
But those are just my associations. I'm aware that we have readers from many continents on this listserve, so discussing issues of common concern is for me not superficial. We don't have to take ourselves overly seriously, either---that's the fun of playfulness (one of the goals of Moreno, noted on his epitaph).
So, I certainly respect your right to hold off until your presentation, but I do hope you'll write it up either for the journal or in a future book.
Warmly, Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Schreiber
To: grouptalk Listserv
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:34 AM
Subject: Fwd: sociatry
Hi Adam,
I want to restate what I wrote earlier:
I find Moreno's work on human civilization so compelling
that it demands of me (and deserves in my book) not a fly-by-night
discussion on this site. As I wrote, we will be addressing this in a pre-conference
workshop relating it to psychodrama and sociodrama and Adam Barcroft and I will
be presenting the material, at least a summary of it, in our 2 hour workshop on sociatric formulas.
I cannot, in fact will not pass this along with the kind of informality of grouptalk. Moreno's brilliance
demands more than that, from me at least and many others I am sure.
Hope you understand.
Best,
Ed
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
Date: January 19, 2008 10:26:04 AM EST
To: "Edward Schreiber" <edwschreiber at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: sociatry
Reply-To: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
You didn't read my note carefully. I have it, I read it, I couldn't find what you were referring to. What am I missing?
Please identify the key phrases and associated paragraphs.
You are more immersed in appreciating the meanings, perhaps. I find Moreno dense and confusing. Occasionally I can isolate a clear point that I can build on, but much of his writing rambles around, shoots from the hip, and so forth.
I sense a grand vision, and resonate with parts of it, but ah, the specifics...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Schreiber" <edwschreiber at earthlink.net>
To: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: sociatry
if you want, I an copy the chapter and send it to you via us mail.
Ed
On Jan 19, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:
Hi Ed,
I did, I read it, I couldn't find it.
You're not meeting me half-way, pal.
I confess my ignorance in my ablility to talmudically elucidate the density of implications in Moreno's writings.
re: These 4 mega- sociometric structures are what have to be understood and addressed - and here is the mind-blower: these 4 forces (mega- structures) are revealed in a group, family, organization, etc.,
(AB: the only list of four was his listing of 4 types of government--anarchistic, utopian, democratic and socialistic--and he hardly comments on these p 175). I'm back-channeling you. If you would prefer we drop this, okay. I don't want to make an issue of it. ..
Warmly, Adam
----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Schreiber" <edwschreiber at earthlink.net>
To: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: sociatry
well, I would advise this then:
go to Sociometry, Experimental Method and the Science of Society.
Go to, I suggest, the chapter on Political Sociometry.
It's all there.
In black and white.
Ed
On Jan 18, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Adam Blatner wrote:
nope, I've got a bunch of other fish to fry, and I'm not warmed up to the matrix of associations and ideas.
Since I do like the process of discussion, a gentle encounter, I'll meet you part-way: If you give me some hints, ideas, tell me what you think so far, I'll play with you in an encouraging way, emphasizing what we can build.
(It will be understood that I don't yet buy the hypothesis that such a thesis can be successfully developed, but I'll put that to the side for a while. Maybe I'll discover with you what your intuition is getting at.)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Schreiber" <edwschreiber at earthlink.net>
To: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: sociatry
Hi Adam,
Well, here is my suggestion ----- and a serious one ----- why don't you see
if you can see these 4 forces ---- and see if you can describe them ---- to me.
Ed
On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Adam Blatner wrote:
Dear Ed, I await an elucidation of the idea that... as you just said, "The illness of society (of our culture, the world whole civilization for a fact) can be, from a Morenean point of view, made so clear that we can find 4 mega- sociometric structures impacting, influencing all other structures. These 4 mega- sociometric structures are what have to be understood and addressed - and here is the mind- blower: these 4 forces (mega- structures) are revealed in a group, family, organization, etc., with sociometry. We have to simply over-lay sociatric theories on top of sociometry and then sociometry illuminates within a group the 4 mega-structures.
Until I get that elucidation, I am wary. If you're right, it would be great! Warmly, Adam
p.s., what are the "mega-structures"? That might help me warm up to what you're trying to say.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.6/1230 - Release Date: 1/17/2008 4:59 PM
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008 7:32 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008 7:32 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080119/25d643ef/attachment.html
More information about the List
mailing list