Looks interesting. I found it hard to hear the audio. Got it from this tweet.
Dr. Keely Kolmes (@drkkolmes)
5/0
2/10 6:10 PM
Sex Education in Online Media: http://vb.ly/20uy Excited to see video of @violetblue’s talk. She also links to her slides.
In this two minute snippet I think I managed to get enough of the idea down, so I can elaborate.
Isomorphism – an insight -wl -mp3
I had a moment of seeing clearly how different phenomena can all be related under one heading:
Isomorphism in human relations.
I am writing this after making the audio, expanding on it:
GENERAL SEMANTICS: An Outline Survey
by Kenneth G. Johnson 3rd Edition Revised
A very interesting Outline! This is by the same guy who I quoted earlier.
11.4 “ ‘You’d be interested to know,’ he (the psychiatrist) said, ‘how many people come to me with troubles that are largely a matter of nomenclature. They suffer the tortures of the damned at the idea that a particular label may fit them or may not fit them. ‘Am I a man? Am I a coward? Am I a failure? Am I an invert? Sometimes, simply, am I a lunatic?’ If you could only get it through your head that it’s you, only you, who’s pinning the label on or taking it off, you’d have your problem half licked.’ ”
– Louis Auchincloss [14]
Facebook just bought FriendFeed. The ensuing discussions have been fascinating, they raise the question:
Who owns your words?
There has been a fear that our personal writing, intimately connected to us, will be lost, deleted, stolen. It has happened before! E-minds, is one example, and there must be many more. The cry is Backup! OK. I have just set up this blog to make a weekly digest of my Tweets and the @replys. Good idea. Thanks to Twitter Tools. However it is not enough.
FriendFeed is a community, there is an invasion, a takeover. We can escape with some of our goods, but we have lost our land, and the community. (I am reporting what I hear, and sense though I have only been a member for a few days.)
“A platform is not a community, it is the people.” He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
Yes and no. People are splitting off from FriendFeed, to identica, to Facebook to streamy.com, some are staying. There is a turmoil and a community is in stress. And the people were alienated from the decision. By joining a proprietary community we know this can happen, but no one involved the community members. The real value of FriendFeed is the people, but they were simply sold as part of the property. The relations of of the means of community are not reflected in the relations of the community.
If this jargon is not familiar, read the Communist Manifesto on the relations of production (or look here) and the relations on the means of production. One is social, the other private in capitalism.
We are seeing the virtual microcosm playing out the capitalism of the macrocosm.
And of course the FB / FF takover has raised these questions and the responses. Dave Winer is particularly warmed-up to the issue, leading two important threads.
One is Your Blog Loves You. We can trust a blog because we own it, and not only that, it can’t be sold, so I can trust your blog as well. (well mostly), I can certainly trust the blogosphere as a whole to persist.
Is this a retreat into individualism & a denial of community? Not really. The communal space is then the larger Blogosphere , with its clustering, and overlapping communities. Bazaars not a cathederal.
The other Dave Winer initiative is: we’ll build one we own!
Permalink
Align the interests of: 1. Users and 2. Investors.
How to do that?Well, they need to be the same people.
I like the idea, but have misgivings! I’d like to follow up research on online community and the relations of ownership. I will have a look again at Virtual Communities on my bookshelf. Or maybe the current discussion, if you move among the bazaars will do the trick. (See Doc Searls response for example.)
It might pay to start with Engles and his book on Utopias, here is the chapter on Utopian Socialism. I say this because I read it in 1974, after investing 5 years of my life creating and participating in a physical community that was owned by its members. I wish id read it before I embarked on the project!
In conclusion…
Where I am at: The container for dialogue, for community, matters.
Tom Atlee has just written an excellent item on Town Hall Meetings, notice how important the frame-work is and how it determines the outcome. Even the simple idea of breaking up into Topic Tables would have a huge impact.
No one structure or method is best. What suits the purpose.
I have been thinking about how I use the Imago dialogues, and thought this description might be useful. It is mostly intended for people who have some experience of this work.
I am somewhat disturbed by the Hellinger material I read. However there new clarity around the creativity inherent in dialogue (see the last Bhom quote in this post.)
Here are two snippets which I find illuminating. Especially if we hold in mind that reality includes an observer.
No two people can have the same insight about the same thing. If they both have an insight about the same thing, that of one differs slightly from that of the other.
… when awareness meets awareness both are enhanced by the encounter.
That “enhancment” is the new, something is created.
I have just been given some info about “Systemic Constellation work”
I want to follow up, two links that might be useful.
THE CHALLENGE AND PROMISE FOR PSYCHODRAMA
OF SYSTEMIC CONSTELLATION WORK
By Ronald Anderson and Karen Carnabucci
And this one, an Alert
Systemic Constellations Wikipedia.
Family Constellations More specifically about Hellinger. Interesting discussions on Wikipedia.
In a recent post I quote the story of how the idea of Encounter found its way from Moreno to Martin Buber. A passage follows by Harville hendric whre he describes the roots of his idea of Validation in the dialogue process… Martin Buber.
It is no wonder then that with this sort of whakapapa, having trained in both Imago & Psychodrama that I see such connection in the approaches.
A passage from Harville Hendrix “The Evolution of Imago Relationship Therapy” in Imago Relationship Therapy: Perspectives on Theory Follows, showing how he connected with the work of Buber.
I’ve been overdoing my exploration about the “relational paradigm”. I’ve been reading, writing, integrating & putting into practice Imago & Psychodrama ideas about systems and the locus of therapy.
So I thought I’d give myself a break and read a thriller.
Blinded by Stephen White, who I have read before & enjoyed.
I am only a few minutes into it and there are passages that stimulate me right back into my work passion, no rest!
I will quote them here and share my reflections.
When I was a social worker in the early ’80s and a person was waiting in the waiting room to see me, the receptionist would ring me and jokingly say your client system is here to see you.
Social Work has had a strong sense for a long time that the individual is always part of a system. This same systems theory was taught to me as being central to Psychodrama, specifically through an article by Lynette Clayton.
Recently I have read some good material in Imago Relationship Therapy : Perspectives on Theory, particularly by Randall C. Mason, Ph.D. who talks about the Relational Paradigm, and sees it as distinct from systems thinking.
I have been wanting to tie all this together, and Moreno’s contribution is significant. I love the way he sees the origin of our thinking of individual psyche ties in with the body as being the locus of treatment in medicine. What a fallacy it has been to continue to think like that in psychotherapy!
The opening of the Chapter on Sociometry in Psychodrama Volume one follows.
