grouptalk discussions
Edward Schreiber
edwschreiber at earthlink.net
Sat Jan 19 10:36:36 CST 2008
"A Kick-Ass Proposal to Adam Blatner from Ed Schreiber"
Thanks for your comments below Adam.
Well, we can agree that there is a "certain kind of discourse
operated in the last few hundred years."...as you wrote below.
The discourse I find interesting is the use of rhetoric that I find
really interesting: American Civilization is the best in the world.
We are the holders of true freedom. We are the vision for
humankind. We are the saviors of humanity. Bull shit. Just ask any
Native person and they will tell a different story. Or ask most
anyone losing a job, or not able to afford health insurance, or
fighting in Iraq, or anyone who has been abused. Just ask what it
feels like and we can find a rhetoric as my friend Derrick Jensen
writes, "A Language Older Than Words." It is that language and that
rhetoric underneath the words JL and Zerka point us to. It's the
magic of our method, it unfolds before us the existential nature of
the first universe, the unbounded life. Just ask the salmon, wild
nature, oceans, lakes, rivers what they are seeing and feeling and -
if we are open to our method sufficiently - we can actually hear that
they are crying. What about the 8 million people who are flooding
out of the homes due to environmental collapse. It's not just use
(even though we so well know we are 5 percent of the world population
using 25 percent of the world's resources. Sustainability? I don't
think so.
So here's my challenge.
At the ASGPP Conference 2009 you and I submit a workshop proposal
called: "A TOWN MEETING OF FOLLOWERS OF MORENO" of something like
that. We have each 3 minutes to speak. We can begin. Then the
floor is open. It's just each of us getting onto the stage telling
our truth. And seeing how the sociometry changes for the better.
How about that?
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/a642f5fd/attachment-0001.html
More information about the List
mailing list