Posting on Grouptalk

[cartmel at alphalink.com.au]

Hi Rollo – Walter – Peter - Group
regarding the 1940 article quote 
...
Objectification of himself by the patient can also be accomplished by means of the 'reversal' 
technique. 
The patient is asked to place himself in the role of someone in his social atom, and an 
auxiliary ego--or the actual person whom the patient is to portray, if possible--is placed In the role 
of the 
patient.
The first issue at stake here is the one of - ‘near’ and ‘far’ sociometry - JLM wrestled with and never 
got to 
resolve.
But, as much as I can discern,  your dialogue to date relates to another and deeper issue – that of 
the 
place of the  ‘individual’ in the modern mind where the individual is terrorized by the group. 
A new reformulation of Aristotle’s dialectic of – the one versus the many. We see this with Trump 
trying to 
make the ONE usa great again by activating the unrulily mob.  Trump can not see the 
irony of his mob terrorizing the one speaker of the house. 

Here is a 2006 quote from Boltanski.
F. A. Hayek's Scientism and the Study of Society offers a particularly trenchant formulation of these 
critiques. The author contrasts "method-ological individualism" with a "scientistic approach 
treating as facts those collectives which are no more than popular generalizations" --or, as he puts it 
later 
on, "vague popular theories" (1952, 38, 54). To dismantle the totalist (collectivist) 
prejudice, he borrows the terms in which Charles Vic-tor Langlois and Charles Seignobos 
formulated their 
critique of sociology: "[I]n the imagination as in direct observation, [collective acts] 
always re-duce to a sum of individual actions. The 'social fact,' as recognized by certain sociologists, 
is a 
philosophical construction, not a historical fact" (210-11 n. 29). 

This is the issue for the auxiliary and protagonist reversing roles. Are they reversing [inverting 
identity] 
with a ‘sociological identity’ or a ‘phenomenon standing’ before them? A specific or a 
generalization? A near or far ‘thing’? A social construct conserve or an emergent person?
Hope this assists.
Brendan Cartmel
Integral Socionomy
Mob:0427560724

----- End forwarded message -----