JL and Godhead
edwschreiber at earthlink.net
edwschreiber at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 12 01:31:13 UTC 2021
In some way the Social Microscope is a Marxist-like instrument - in some way.
It is able to show the underlying and determining central structure taking place
within all formal and informal groupings as JL wrote about it. It uses a very
specific sociometric test, times two, with each of the two using specific criteria
from Moreno's understanding of human development and Zerka's writing about
the stages of development in her textbook on the method. This - the stages of
development become criteria from choice in the test and one is done then the
The underlying structure to humanity is seen in the sociometric configurations
that appear and the training is to learn to see them using the Moreno lens of Sociatry,
where a small is a microscope to all of mankind. It is marxist in that is - this underlying
structure Moreno wrote of, is the nature of capitalism where there is a concentration of
resources and others are left out. This is able to be seen. The way it is not marxist
is that this takes place really in all formal and informal groups, in all settings capitalist or not
as JL wrote of it.
Beyond that underlying structure that is seen, there is a presence felt that is larger than all of this,
it is the presence from which all form arises, this field that quantum physics and native and Buddhist
teachings point to. That becomes known through direct experience. Sociatric science and mysticism
of the Godhead directly realized. Not from the mind. But with real in person experience and we see
that is just works as does all of Moreno's tools.
Sent: Oct 11, 2021 8:05 PM
Subject: JL and Godhead
I by no means wish or try to demean, The
and JLs G_d-head.
I am just enthusiastically trying to get serious in understanding it.
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] Freuds 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 protagonists 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.
Grouptalk mailing list
List at grouptalkweb.org
More information about the List