Role Reversal, etc. (response to Peter H)

[Peter Howie]

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. 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. 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

At 07:54 PM 3/28/2008 +0000, Ivo Banaco wrote:

>We can add in this conversation some useful theoretical inputs by some 
>important points made by the field of developmental psychology. American 
>philosopher, Ken Wilber, makes an important synthesis of some of the most 
>important discoveries in this regard. To put in simple, every human being 
>develops through 3 major levels of development that goes from egocentric 
>to sociocentric to worldcentric (eventually kosmocentric in the higher 
>realm). There are many scales that we can discuss, but the normal movement 
>is from the narrow circles of egocentricity to the wider embrace of the 
>world and its perspectives.
>
>
>
>Things get more complicated (but more intuitive) when Ken Wilber adds to 
>this levels of being, lines of development. The most important works in 
>this field comes from Howard Gardner with his frames of mind and multiple 
>intelligences. The general message is: Some people can be better in some 
>areas, other people in others.
>
>
>
>Ken Wilber's theory is more complex than that as some of you might know, 
>so I will not develop more than that.
>
>
>
>Having said that, let me just explore an important intersection about 
>levels&lines and this conversation about Moreno's Developmental Theory. 
>Ken Wilber in most recent works develops an important meta-theory 
>framework. Specifically in the interior/subjective dimensions of human 
>beings (what he calls the Upper left quadrant and Lower left quadrant, 
>being the exterior/objective dimensions the upper right and lower right 
>quadrants, completing the four quadrants of reality, upper quadrants the 
>individual dimensions, lower quadrants the collective dimensions), Wilber 
>distinguishes the view from within and the view from without. Let's call 
>them zone 1 and zone 2 approaches, respectively.
>
>
>
>A zone #1 approach privileges an understanding of the subjective and 
>intersubjective dimensions of our beings from within, using the first and 
>second person languages, using meaning, intersubjective mutual 
>understanding, hermeneutics, phenomenology, etc.  A zone #2 approach is 
>mainly a structuralist stance, an "it" language, a theory. Ideally, these 
>two perspectives must be co-creating an integral view of subjective 
>dimensions. A failure to do so could have serious negative implications. 
>For instance, Freud could had had a pretty good theory about the 
>unconscious, neurosis, etc, but it lacks a good therapeutic method in 
>order to bring solutions to the patients. He was good at it language, not 
>so good in zone #1 approaches.
>
>
>
>In this discussion, we should have in mind that what is being discussed is 
>mainly a view from within, which is great as far as it goes. Concepts as 
>role reversing, mirroring, empathy development, must intertwine with 
>modern research of human development in its multiple intelligences.
>
>
>
>"Experience without theory is blind,
>but theory without experience is mere intellectual play"
>- Immanuel Kant
>
>
>
>I think the above simplifies my issue.
>
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>
> From Portugal,
>
>Ivo Banaco
>
>
>On 3/28/08, Peter Howie 
><<mailto:peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au> 
>  wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>
>Good responses! but lunch and a meeting call.
>
>PH  The other aspect of this model is noticing when a client or trainee 
>is, during their work, in one or other of these stages. For instance 
>confidence fading, energy going down can often indicate the stage of a 
>double and hence doubling is valuable. The stage may only last a moment 
>but it could indicate some form of doubling rather than mirroring or role 
>reversal (which includes mirroring)
>>          AB: I think you're saying that doubling is often useful when 
>> the protagonist is "losing energy" -- is that so?
>>
>No I am suggesting that the protagonist is actually acting as though they 
>are in the stage of the double - that in the role they are in they are 
>incapable of the things a person who has gone through the stage of the 
>double are capable of - in that role. Its not there in role reversal or 
>taking up other roles. But really a person may have matured past the stage 
>for all practical purposes but when enacting a drama they may be in that 
>stage again.
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter
>
>Grouptalk mailing list
><mailto:List at grouptalkweb.org>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/20080329/d738481d/attachment.html