Fwd: didn’t see this come through

M.K. Hudgins drkatetsi at icloud.com
Fri Oct 1 11:33:38 UTC 2021

Kate Hudgins, Ph,D, TEP
Therapeutic Spiral International

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "M.K.  Hudgins" <drkatetsi at icloud.com>
> Date: October 1, 2021 at 7:23:45 AM EDT
> To: edwschreiber at earthlink.net
> Cc: cartmel at alphalink.com.au, list at grouptalkweb.org
> Subject: Re:
> Dear Brendan 
> Thanks for sharing more.  It is good to see the whole from many different ways and w different inputs equally valuable.  Moreno wasn’t very good as seeing others as contributors I don’t think.  His own god complex that he created all. 
> What I have done with the question where does spontaneity come from is to use role theory n my clinical hat to create the trauma survivors internal role atom in a 3 stage model. 
> In stage one of scene one of any TSM drama we prescribe roles that are needed n when enacted create a state of spontaneity where the person is in a stable state so they can they face their trauma safely. 
> There are 8 prescriptive roles… a witness role, the TSM Body n Containing doubles, 3 types of strengths n a manager of defenses. 
> When you find the right set of roles enacted n em livened anyone can find their state of spontaneity to make new n creative decisions.  
> While I personally follow the Godhead as originally proposed by Mario… we have found a way to concretize spontaneity… regardless of where it actually comes from. 
> As Moreno said…. The self emerges from the roles we play.  Teaching people the skills to stay in the present with resources through prescriptive roles is a clinical path to guide all Psychodrama’s n many people now enroll strengths whereas that surely was not the case when TSM first developed 1992-1995. 
> Nice to have some interesting talk on Grouptalk.  
> Thanks Ed for getting it started. 
> Kate 
> Kate Hudgins, Ph,D, TEP
> Therapeutic Spiral International
> www.therapeuticspiralmodel.com
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Sep 30, 2021, at 9:31 PM, edwschreiber at earthlink.net wrote:
>> The Godhead.  The First Universe is the source of the spark we find.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> Sent: Sep 30, 2021 9:10 PM
>> To: 
>> Subject: undefined
>> Hi Kate,
>> Well spotted. 'Where does spontaneity come from?', is a key question for spontaneity-ists.
>> Conventionally there are 4 answers.
>> Answer 1) Is the answer of positivist-behaviorists. They [Parsons] contend it comes from the act of the
>> actor. The Director-Producers instruction is, 'Do - Don't Think. Do'.
>> And lo and behold a spontaneous act occurs. The problem with this impetuosity is the actor has to learn to
>> live with the consequences of their act. Not always easy especially if the actor has a strong fight drive \
>> impulse. It tends to look like a mob invading Capital-Hill and asking from inside the building, 'now what do
>> we do?'
>> Answer 2) is, 'spontaneity comes from the aboriginal onto-genetic Role developing within the actor'. This
>> is the most common answer provided [taught] by IAGP as far as I can see. It seems to be Edward's
>> answer as he seems to assume we each are conceived with a 'spontaneous atom' within us. This atom has
>> quantum [sub-atomic] characteristics. Each atom then [re-] acts with other atoms to pattern the global
>> social system as conglomerations of atoms. The problem with this theory is it is not very good at
>> explaining intelligence other than a function of the 'individual creative genius [atom]'. The obvious question
>> arises, 'what happens when you get 3 genius in the one room'. How can their individual genius intelligence
>> be a collective? The Christian answer of course is The Trinity; three in one. But that is a bit abstract and
>> overly symbolic for earthly actors. Its hard to see Trump and Putin and Xi admitting their intelligence is of
>> their collectivity.
>> Answer 3) is provided by Vygotsky who says the child fills [or at least tries to fill] the spontaneity gap
>> between the two parents. Vygotsky spontaneity is thus conceived of a dynamic collective 3-way social
>> intelligence. This seems to be a good resolution to the atomists' [individualists'] problems. Intelligence
>> then becomes the lack of spontaneity between Trump and Putin and Xi when they are in the same room. It
>> is of course a tragedy Moreno went to USA and not to Moscow where Jacob and Lev could have shared
>> their ideas. JLM was needed in 2 places at once.
>> Answer 4) is from Roy Bhaskar who posits that spontaneity comes from pure 'absence'. It is not so much
>> that the child sees the gap between the parents intelligence \ spontaneity but that the parents know the
>> gap is 'empty' in the sense that the gap can be filled with any 'potential'. Vygotsky of course focused on
>> language such that the child fills in the words absent between the 2 parents. Bhaskar posits it is not only
>> language that provides potentiality. Bhaskar's spontaneity can be pre-languaged such that it includes our
>> non-verbal dreams and our hands [bodies] groping when our eyes and ears are closed. Bhaskar says
>> answers 1-3 fall foul of the Epistemic Fallacy; which is to say the spontaneity they espouse assumes or
>> anticipates certain forms. In respect to Moreno's quote, ' new response to an old situation or an adequate
>> response to a new situation', the epistemic fallacy is enacted when the Director and Protagonist both have
>> conserved ideas for what; 'new' and 'old' and 'adequate' actually mean when each of these are really only
>> potentials which can mean any number of 'things' and things not fully able to be 'anticipated' \ enacted.
>> Bhaskar's notion of 'Absence' makes framing practice [especially therapy] very difficult so in some ways
>> the project is in a quagmire if not stalled. Some claim it is bedeviled by a form of utopianism. DCR
>> prompts theory building rather than 'solutions'.
>> Hope this inspires an Answer 5) or at least unpacks the dialectic some more.
>> Best Til Next
>> Brendan
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: M.K. Hudgins
>> Sent: Thursday, 30 September 2021 8:48 PM
>> To: edwschreiber at earthlink.net
>> Cc: cartmel at alphalink.com.au; list at grouptalkweb.org
>> Subject: Re: Psychodrama as Education for Life
>> It’s interesting to see this dialectic.
>> For me WSS is directly in the book “only the spontaneous shall survive”. His definition was behavioral in
>> many ways when he defined spontaneity as a new response to an old situation or an adequate response to
>> a new situation.
>> Where the larger conversation you are all having is about where does spontaneity come from?
>> Thanks. Kate
>> Kate Hudgins, Ph,D, TEP
>> Therapeutic Spiral International
>> www.therapeuticspiralmodel.com
>> Grouptalk mailing list
>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>> 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/20211001/3acab82c/attachment.html>

More information about the List mailing list