JL and Godhead

[cartmel at alphalink.com.au]

Dear Ed,
I by no means wish or try to demean, The
 and JL’s ‘G_d-head’.
I am just enthusiastically trying to get serious in understanding it.


Dear Judith,
In as much as  the term Godhead refers to the ‘organizing principle’, behind [under-neath] our 
stage-production consciousness, then it is not too dis-similar to [Duns Scotus] Freud’s notion of 
unconscious or the old religious idea of Primordial Spirit being behind the Temple Veil.

We see ‘organizing principle’ at work when we notice the before and after sociometry of the PD 
theatrical ‘Stage Setting’. After 1 million productions around the world we see alienation and conflict 
set out in Scene 1 on the Stage at the start of Production, and then, connection and creative 
encounter displayed in Scene 3 on the Stage at the end of Production.

As first impression of discerning the ‘organizing principle’ we can see how ‘intimacy’ and ‘mutuality’ 
have re-shaped the protagonist’s sociometry. We can add spontaneity and creativity as other 
aspects of the ‘organizing principle’ at work in our enactments. The question then becomes - what 
organizes the; ‘intimacy’, ‘mutuality’,  spontaneity and creativity et. al. ?  

Of course the nature of the  ‘organizing principle’ in one sense is an oxymoron because it is so fluid 
it seems to defy ‘organization’. In this sense Spontaneity can be said to defy determinacy of any 
kind. I presume it is the ‘complexity’ of quantum mechanics that enchants Edward to say that this 
type of physics pretty much equates to the meta-physics of Moreno.

For Kate the organizing principle is like  therapeutic Spiral – similar to the spiral of the DNA helix.

As for myself – I am more Marxist and see the ‘organizing principle’ as a dialectic of Master-Slave. 
The Protagonist wrestles with themselves; first as a [egotistical] Master wanting to enslave their 
active Self, and, as enslaved Self wanting freedom from Masters. After the catharsis-of-integration 
the Protagonist seeks to implement the Master as Servant of the developing Self, and, as Servant of 
the Master-full Self to develop an  autonomous Self devoid of Master-Slave antagonisms.

 Once again I argue it would have been great if Moreno had met Vygotsky and Alexandre` Kojève. 
Hope this makes sense.

Best Regards,
Brendan