child development and world realization

[Ivo Banaco]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080331/2b7466e7/attachment.html