<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Ivo and grouptalk,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Of course dialogue and
interchange is (in the largest sense of the term) politics, which may also be
considered the art of the possible. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> I've been just recently reading David Bohm
& F. David Peat's book, Science, order, and creativity. 1987, Bantam New
Age. Very supportive of Moreno's ideals, without knowing about him.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> I was reminded of the
archetypal functions of the "puer" (Latin for boy, referring to the spirit of
innocent youth) and its creative tension with the "senex" (Latin for elder,
referring to the spirit of cautious experience). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In the interchange between Ed
and me, for example, he is right in inviting us to explore creatively---as is
Connie. I caution only that I would prefer a bit less over-enthusiasm in the
nature of the claims made, such as confusing myth with fact. I prefer a middle
ground of new ideas to be modified by some qualification, such as "in this
context," or "to speak figuratively, not literally," and so forth. I experience
discourse that lacks qualifications as misleading and/or arrogant. Yet with what
seems to me to be a mild reservation, I really do want to encourage creative
ideas. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> A middle ground is the region of
play. Again that qualification applies, the "What if?" attitude. I'm all for our
playing in action, in dialogue, exploring---because the beauty of play is that
there is some tentativeness to it. Even a "I've got an idea, lets..." is framed
within a context in which (with kids, at least) an objection isn't necessarily
to be judged as "rigidity" or "you're no fun" but rather as an invitation to
modify the original idea. "Okay, then, let's also ... " There's room to
maneuver and no one is making final judgments---and there are even levels
of the kinds of reality that are being addressed---play or "objective"
reality. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> That's one of my
objection to parts of new age discourse: There's a tendency to act by some folks
as if we know what we are talking about, in some final, ultimate way. I've
talked to the higher angels (this part is playful and figurative!) and they've
told me that as many discoveries and paradigm shifts that have happened in the
last three hundred years will happen again in the next three hundred years, so
it might be presumptious to come to more than provisional conclusions.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Now,
more to your point about political fight: Do I understand, though, that this is
the point of your message---to recognize that it is better to identify more
sharply where there is disagreement? If so, I agree.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> However, to characterize it as a
fight comes across a little harsh, because in my mind it is no more angry
or hostile or fighting than my wife and I discussing where we should place a
picture on a wall as we decorate our house---a little higher, lower, maybe
on that wall instead? Now in fact, this is political---there is a
continuing process of exploring whose idea is better, mixed with other political
moves---i.e., tact, diplomacy, appreciations for areas of agreement, etc.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> What do you
think? Warmly, Adam</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> ----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ibanaco@gmail.com href="mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com">Ivo Banaco</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=peterhowie@macquariehouse.com.au
href="mailto:peterhowie@macquariehouse.com.au">Peter Howie</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=list@grouptalkweb.org
href="mailto:list@grouptalkweb.org">Group talk Listserv</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:36
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: PINEAL GLAND (2)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Dear Peter, Adam, Connie, Ed and all,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Let's awaken up the implicit here. Let us not pretend that this recent
dynamic exchange of e-mails doesn't exist. This is politics in-action in the
Group talk list. At least I feel in this way, I don't know if anybody feel the
same. I am only speaking for myself. There is nothing wrong with
"political arguments", what is wrong, in my opinion, is letting the implicit
stay there, not generating an explicit output.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>What I am trying to say in objective terms and in a reconstructive
fashion is: Ed starts a tread with a certain topic: Pineal Gland. To use again
Hegel's thesis and antithesis terms we had the first reply of Connie using a
more spiritual emphasis (the thesis) to make sense of the topic and a more
"rational" response of Adam (antithesis). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If this happens to be a good description of that dynamic, what
followed next was a "political fight" in the best sense of the word. But let
us assume that, genuinely and directly, and not pretend that this isn't
happening. At least in "real" politics, albeit all the bad things in it, they
have political parties, constant dialectical arguments, making their
differences crystal clear. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For me, this last e-mail of Peter (whom I don't know but it doesn't
inhibit me to engage with him an intellectual argument), with due respect,
doesn't say virtually nothing unless for supporting Adam's answer. Or to put
it differently, it has a lot of content (and a good one I must say), but the
material is used in an implicit way, in a political correctness that I must
admit annoys me sometimes. What do you, Peter, are defending in this topic, I
mean clearly, and not from your comfort zone? just that "the
pineal is well and truly in the dark". Are you saying that it's not possible
to say more about it? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>With care and good intentions,</DIV>
<DIV>Ivo <BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>