grouptalk discussions
Edward Schreiber
edwschreiber at earthlink.net
Sat Jan 19 10:11:27 CST 2008
by the way "fly by night" is a great furniture store here in
Northampton MA
but that's not the point.
the point is that the material deserves a few hours of attention, not
here.
Thanks
Ed
On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:
> 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/b427fcbe/attachment.html
More information about the List
mailing list