Posting on Grouptalk

[Moreno]

I’ve a copy of the first WSS edition - not digitised though and at the office - I’ll have a look on Monday. 

Dr Peter C Howie
Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Sep 2021, at 4:14 pm, Moreno <peter at moreno.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Peter C Howie
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 8:48 am, cartmel at alphalink.com.au wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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 -----
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Grouptalk mailing list
>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org