<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Greetings!<div>Thanks Ivo for this outline and reflection. I find your email to be a "mirror" to all of us. You are showing a perspective, we can see ourselves and aspects of ourselves (positive, negative, mutual, ambivalence, etc.) in what you say. For myself, of course I love what you wrote about my comments in your first point. I also agree. Honestly, it's taken 18 years to understand sociatry. Zerka said in a workshop in May, after I spoke of all this in my own work, she said to the group, "he's a slow learner" and I would say there's a lot to learn. How do we take the method and stretch it to the whole of mankind? The only way is through taking the instruments and seeing them, differently. But I am a dedicated theorist, and Moreno is my theory. I've tried others, Wilber, Derrick Jesnsen, as related fields, but the foundation for me is Moreno. So in seeing the method differently, as a theorist, I had to go to the trenches and find documents of theory that are not widely known. I'm Very Fortunate to live in Massachusetts for many reasons. For one, I can legally marry as a gay man. If I lived north or south or west I could not (although thank God that is slowing changing). The sociodynamic effect has it, it organizes groups, formal and informal, to move resources from the whole to the few. The right to marry the person I am in love with was denied to me. That role (of huge and high value) was moved to a few, and thus, isolates were produced. And the years of dealing with this have led to an understanding of "why this is the case". My Brother Christian de la Huerta has been instrumental in all this. If you don't know of him, he's an exceptional being. In fact - he and I are co-leading a program at the IAGP Summer Academy in Granada Spain in 2009. </div><div><br></div><div>The reason I bring him up is he is a researcher and author as well, and has placed a period of his work on a study of the role of gay and lesbian, transgendered, Two-Spirited people. With great fortune I've been involved with the work of Clyde Hall (Naraya Preservation Society). He is a Shoshone man who does good work for all people. </div><div><br></div><div>In any case, the role of gay-lesbian-two-spirited people have always been to be a bridge between the two worlds. That role was stripped by onslaughts over years of reducing the two-spirits into less-than-human. To secure the power related to the sociodynamic effect. This power, the sociodynamic effect, has created what we are living with: massive poverty, people without homes or even water to drink, vast areas of lands of people without any food - and then we have the rest of what we see. The sociodynamic effect is an effect that emerges as a meta-structure and is part of the central underlying structure to human society. UNDER THAT HOWEVER is the Godhead that gives form life and life form. And that's what emerges within groups and within individuals.</div><div><br></div><div>The single most important aspect of all this comes from my dearest of dearest of dearest of friends: Zerka T. Moreno. </div><div>When I was much younger and a man living with AIDS, without much going for me but a good heart and a sharp mind, she took me under her wing and she gave me shelter. She also pushed me to learn and grow but always with a love that felt known by her. And now, tomorrow, on Friday this week I formally sign the papers to open a non-profit Foundation in her name, to honor her - and her work and life (this is a sort of Zen honoring) but also to form a way to bring all this to the world.</div><div><br></div><div>The single most important aspect I mentioned is what she has always pointed me to: an autonomous healing center inside of me - and now I know the tools, even formulas from this theory - to bring this too, ways to open the a.h.c. inside each of us, in groups, and in society like planting of seeds.</div><div><br></div><div>That's my life.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Ed<br><div><div>On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Ivo Banaco wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Adam,<div><br></div><div>1- This thread started with Ed's bold vision of following Moreno's sociatry. He has a vision, he has methods, and he wants to apply it to the world at large. This is, as you called it a gross generalization, but I would called a meta cognition of things which is an essential 1st step to apply something with a clear purpose in action;</div> <div><br></div><div>2 - Language it's the ultimate generalization. If you use it you are categorizing, thus trying to represent in symbols not the thing in itself but the way we organize our mind to make sense of this world. It is simply inescapable; so when you, with skepticism, tend to reject those bold statements preferring other ways, you are implicitly making your own judgement, your own generalization; of that are degrees of generalizations, but I think you are saying that you support the discrimination of all different kinds of groups, persons, environment to the maximum possible, while rejecting other kinds of aggregations. But if take your way to the limit we wouldn't be possible to talk about north-American culture, typical Japanese person, etc - that for me is my understanding of dominant mode of discourse, dominant mode of life, etc.</div> <div><br></div><div>3- In the limit, the non-verbal, the non-expressible, the non-dual, a trans-personal state of consciousness is the only way to stop making generalizations and see that we are all One. In a mature human being only the direct experience of the non-dual could bring us to a different understanding of things...because when we try to explain we move to the partial, the dual...we could follow a way but stop being The Way.</div> <div><br></div><div>4- We live in a historical turning point in our lives, as human beings. If we take a large view of humanity (a gross generalization), it is the first in our history that at a push of a <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial; white-space: pre; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">button no human being will be left to see the results. That is humans created the possibility of auto-destruction. At the same time, we also created good technology, action methods and, most importantwe developed a self awareness of who we are and how we want to live in the future. So there are possibilities, choices and decisions to be made. The most important thing, whatever the concrete steps we choose, is a cognitive and emotional awareness that no matter what our differences are, we all have two legs, two hands, one heart, one head. When we smile we tend to be happy, when we cry we tend to be sad. This is universal, not cultural. </span></div> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; white-space: pre; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial; white-space: pre; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">5- Post-modernism made the wonderful "discover" of the differences that we must respect between cultures. In this information era we have virtually access of all different cultures in the world. But it is time to move forward, to move together and bring a new mode of discourse to the world. Good intentions, bold statements, utopia? Perhaps, but do we have a choice?</span></div> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; white-space: pre; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; white-space: pre; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">Ivo</span></div> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; white-space: pre; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; white-space: pre; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br> </span></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Adam Blatner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ablatner@verizon.net">ablatner@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff"> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">But it is impossible not to make generalizations.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> ab: how so? What circumstances? I think each time one makes a generalization, some rationale for how this is useful needs to be explained.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> IB </font><font face="Arial" size="2"> The biggest problem is to distinguish between individual and groups. AB: this seems worse than a generalization, it's impossibly vague. </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">IB Many theorists make the mistake to claim that a group is a super I, in the sense that in their taxonomy the group is in a higher level relatively to individual.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> Not so I think. </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> AB: Good for you. That one is a theorist or makes a claim or is a recognized authority does not mean that these claims are correct or useful.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> IB </font><font face="Arial" size="2"> am again with Wilber in this, as I believe that individual and group arises simultaneously.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> There are no groups without individuals, but the inverse is also truth.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> An individual, as Whitehead notes, has a dominant monad or an ego that coordinates all the different selves –however, most of the times it is not a democracy!</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font><font face="Arial" size="2"> A group has a dominant mode of discourse (see Integral Spirituality, chapter 7). Ideally, in the US elections, both candidates will try to capture, within their ideas, the largest number of persons. They either could resonate with the predominant mode of discourse or create a new one. But of course this is a big generalization. As Adam says there are many sub-sets, sub-cultures, and so on, we are all holons, which are wholes at the same time that are parts of a higher holon.<br> <span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><br><font size="2">AB: I'm not sure that I disagree, but these generalizations are too broad to be meaningful to me; I think that attempts to draw conclusions at this level of abstraction are quite vulnerable to over-generalizations. </font></span></font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><font size="2"> mentioning Whitehead again: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness</a></font></span></font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><font size="2"></font></span></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><font size="2"> So let's get down from the empyrean heights to asking: Are there any specific issues here? What are they? </font></span></font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><font size="2"> It's as if at a certain level of abstraction I lose the thread and along with it my warm-up. </font></span></font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><font size="2"> Ivor, what point do you want to make here? (Any specific examples?) Or any questions? </font></span></font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><font size="2"></font></span></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><font size="2"> Warmly, Adam</font></span></font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <blockquote style="padding-right:0px;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;border-left:#000000 2px solid;margin-right:0px"> <div style="font:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div> <div style="background:#e4e4e4;font:10pt arial"><b>From:</b> <a title="ibanaco@gmail.com" href="mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com" target="_blank">Ivo Banaco</a> </div> <div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="adam@blatner.com" href="mailto:adam@blatner.com" target="_blank">Adam Blatner</a> ; <a title="list@grouptalkweb.org" href="mailto:list@grouptalkweb.org" target="_blank">list@grouptalkweb.org</a> </div> <div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:16 PM</div> <div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: powerful statements & action methods</div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font><font face="Arial" size="2"></font><br></div> <div dir="ltr"> <div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div><span style="font-size:11px"></span><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><p><span style="font-family:Tahoma"><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate">Hi Adam and all,<br></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><br></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate">Just some quick notes. When Ken Wilber differentiate between Lower left and Lower right quadrant he moves to the right all objective stuff, even cultural institutions, even language is in the right. When a Chinese (who doesn't understand any foreign language) try to engage in a dialogue with a German they eventually reach some kind of mutual understanding beyond any formal rule of language, environment or specific subjective mind set. When an I meet another I they could form a We space. If they fail, they fail to reach a fundamental perspective - the lower left quadrant. They become alien to each other, an it, an object to each other - not an I not a We…an It. Economics is a science that formed theories with a strong lower right basis. And has a rather limited understanding about the other perspectives.<br> </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><br></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate">A more complicated thing, I believe, is to define cultural conserve that could have a direct correlation to LR institutional framework, but also I think could be a more LL informal conserve rules. Douglass North, a Nobel Prize winner, makes an interesting distinction between formal rules (LR) and informal rules (LL), both of them cultural conserves I believe.<br> </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><br></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate">Another important point and related to this is that of the difficult concept of "people". AB: "the idea that we can communicate to the heart of people assumes that there is a category called "people," and the art of politics shows this to be illusory, like "structure." It is a gross overgeneralization. There are many many sub-sets, sub-cultures, demographic niches, and ultimately, the peculiarities of individuals. Even the individual is a combination of sub-selves or roles, many of which are in conflict or "undecided." Many of these roles are further rather unconscious or disowned."<br> </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><br></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate">I agree. But it is impossible not to make generalizations. The biggest problem is to distinguish between individual and groups. Many theorists make the mistake to claim that a group is a super I, in the sense that in their taxonomy the group is in a higher level relatively to individual. Not so I think. I am again with Wilber in this, as I believe that individual and group arises simultaneously. There are no groups without individuals, but the inverse is also truth. An individual, as Whitehead notes, has a dominant monad or an ego that coordinates all the different selves – however, most of the times it is not a democracy! A group has a dominant mode of discourse (see Integral Spirituality, chapter 7). Ideally, in the US elections, both candidates will try to capture, within their ideas, the largest number of persons. They either could resonate with the predominant mode of discourse or create a new one. But of course this is a big generalization. As Adam says there are many sub-sets, sub-cultures, and so on, we are all holons, which are wholes at the same time that are parts of a higher holon.<br> </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"><br></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate">Best,<br> </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate"></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial;border-collapse:separate">Ivo</span><br></span></p><div> <br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div></span><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div> <br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div></div> <div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div> <div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div> <div><br> <div class="gmail_quote"><br></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><br></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><br></div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Adam Blatner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ablatner@verizon.net" target="_blank">ablatner@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff"> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Hi Ivo, thanks for your comments. A few points. In your item on Ken Wilber, when you spoke of economics I think you meant the lower "right" (not left" column, the objective cultural institutions and arrangements (i.e., cultural conserves). </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> The other point: You wrote: </font>I think in our informational era, the importance that the written form has and how badly it is treated, particularly by the media, but also by the blog sphere and generally by Internet have to be a central concern for our society. The distorted messages, the shadow projections, the toxic arguments... Adam, I can see your point of giving more emphasis on action methods rather than bold statements. Perhaps we really need both, if we think the people who have the social power are the ones that can influence groups with nothing but illusions (but than using manipulative power and individual agendas). We need both an approach where we can communicate to the heart of people and simultaneously to deliver really concrete action methods. Is it possible to put the emphasis in both?</div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> AB: this struck me at a time when I've been thinking of the psycho-socio-cultural roots of epistemology---that big word referring to the question of how do we know what we know. I've been reading some books about critical thinking and psychology recently, and several points seem to be so. (I'm laying a foundation to reply to the paragraph above.)</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> 1. People have been educated to "know." Knowing answers, having confidence in what you know, is seen as strength. Being unsure, still investigating, is weak. Some corollaries: a. Debate is good, and people should present their positions with passion, argument. (My whole point is that many of these positions are actually misleading and largely mistaken!) b. The older you are the more you should be "confident." c. Political leaders would not be voted in if they say, "I have some plausible ideas that we're going to try out; they seem better on medium close examination than my opponents. I am better at improvising (i.e., Moreno's ideal of spontaneity) than my opponent, and that is why you should vote for me. Circumstances change, and my campaign promises will likely need revision.... etc." People want certainty. The media feed this childish illusion.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> To restate: I don't hold with some of the unspoken rules about pretending that you know and it's okay to express this knowledge with confidence. Not only is this misleading, but it offers a model to young people that they, too, should develop a persona of pseudo-confidence. There are few heroes, models, out there offering models of reasoned inquiry, which is then the foundation for improvisation.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> 2. We have centuries of adults, authority figures, clergy, etc. saying "I know truth." This is the model. We have no tradition of God saying, "I'm improvising, and I'm not finished with creation; furthermore, I am not ultimately powerful: I cannot make you as co-creators behave. I am but a still, small voice in your souls."</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> 3. People in their childish mentality associate the illusion of knowing (or its second-best status, believing in the face of mystery) with security. They feel insecure if anyone who is supposed to "know" hints that knowledge is provisional, a working model for the moment, and in need of ongoing revision. This demand for certainty has not yet been widely recognized as immature. Rather, authorities have pandered to it. (See the story of the Grand Inquisitor, in the middle of Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov.")</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> 3a. There's a tendency towards either-or thinking, so being less than confident about knowledge (which seems "strong") must then be viewed as "weak." Too few people have seen adults use the maturity and strength of persistence, diplomacy, negotiation, discussion, dialogue, listening, role reversal, empathy, and realized that this was a more authentic type of strength. Rather, we are exposed to superheroes and other movie figures who resort to simple physical power, force, intimidation, and violence to "win." The idea of coming to a "draw" is inconceivable to the immature mind, though in fact that's what we do all the time in a good disagreement with close family. How can we generate what seem to be win-win arrangements? That is the wisdom of diplomacy. </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> 4. Returning to Ivo's comments about "bold statements." This is a strategy, a policy, and one should become clear where and how it is likely to be effective. In many contexts, bold statements tend to become free of qualifications and therefore oversimplified. This is a problem with politics and rhetoric. Half the time bold statements are misleading, stupid, can backfire, and /or are ignored. Occasionally, a bit of rhetoric is useful, depending on the situation and especially the audience! Who are you aiming your statements at? </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> 5. There are other categories besides action methods and bold statements, other alternatives. One is an invitation to dialogue, one in which parties truly listen and are willing to revise their own positions according to their interaction. </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> 6. The idea that we can communicate to the heart of people assumes that there is a category called "people," and the art of politics shows this to be illusory, like "structure." It is a gross overgeneralization. There are many many sub-sets, sub-cultures, demographic niches, and ultimately, the peculiarities of individuals. Even the individual is a combination of sub-selves or roles, many of which are in conflict or "undecided." Many of these roles are further rather unconscious or disowned. </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> So politics as the art of the possible asks, "What group are we talking to and what do they need to hear? What can't they hear? What must be said if they are to vote for us? Can we lie? Can we get away with lying? How much can we stretch and distort the truth?" etc.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> (You may discern that I'm also reacting to the current swirl of political debate as we prepare for our national elections.)</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> Well, that's enough for now. Warmly, Adam</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><div> <br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><hr><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><br>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">http://www.avg.com</a> <br>Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1724 - Release Date: 10/14/2008 2:02 AM<br><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Grouptalk mailing list</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><a href="mailto:List@grouptalkweb.org">List@grouptalkweb.org</a></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><a href="http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org">http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org</a></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>