Personal Development Evening with Walter Logeman & Kate Tapley

Just updated our Workshop page.  Adding it here in the mainstream!

Weekly on a Thursday 6:30 to 9:00
Term Three,  2021

Five Thursday Evenings in September — 2, 9, 16, 23, 30

Love. Living life to the full. Finding meaning. Global and spiritual matters. Conflict, grief and illness. Examine and be challenged by matters of importance to you in these evening workshops. You can expect to gain a deeper awareness of yourself and others. Learn to be spontaneous, courageous and effective in relationships. We will use psychodrama to explore themes relevant to you and the group. If you are in a couple relationship you are both invited to attend.

No previous group experience is necessary.

Continue reading “Personal Development Evening with Walter Logeman & Kate Tapley”

The psychological and the social

Psychodrama and sociodrama; psychodramatic roles and social roles.  What is the difference?

What is not the difference:  Psyche is “inner” and social is “outer”.

Psychodrama is about the social and cultural atom.  Is there a psychological atom? I don’t think so.

I have a story that the might be a clue about when the psyche is at work. This happens often. Recently I co-led a group. We had little idea who would be there. We spent an hour or two warming up to the group  We made a good connection with each other.  We enjoyed a discussion about how to work with anger in a psychodrama? The other fun thing was sharing the tv programmes we liked.

The first words in the group from a group member were about how to deal with anger.  And the first drama had quite a focus on Netflix.

I have always put this down to there being a sociometric matrix at work.  It does seem like Jung’s synchronicity and “objective psyche”? Even when we use the word psyche for that it is a SOCIOmetric phenomenon I think.

~

Psychodramatic – and psychological have the Greek word for the soul at their root. The breath, the butterfly. That which has little material weight, like images, imagination, stories, fantasies and dreams. These things are deep in our being, our history — archetypal… and some way collective, they come alive in art, language and theatre.

I keep coming back to: psyche is social. Or, the social is psychological. The social can be seen as the space between, as the image, as the soul, or the heart.

~

A sociodrama has a sociodramatic question.

A psychodrama has a concern.

Both are questions about life, the psychodramatic question is more about individual dilemmas and healing. A protagonist can do the work and others can learn from that for themselves so a psychodrama usually has a protagonist. However the question can be tackled by the group, it is then a psychodrama is group centered.

A sociodramatic question is about the group, the world, about US. So Mostly a sociodrama does not have a protagonist. But maybe the question is best explored by a person who is living that social dilemma, then Walter have a protagonist centered sociodrama.

A useful distinction but not enough.

Both are drama, both bring to life something of the soul, perhaps the soul of the world, or soul in the world. Both can concretise the imaginal, possible futures hidden images.

Some moments in sociodramas I recall were exquisite moments of theatre. Moving and uncovering the depth of life. Full of soul.

Maybe it is not useful to make any hard and fast distinctions about the socius and the psyche. Both are there as we seek to explore ourselves in the world.

iswould be helpful to move freely along the psychosocial continuum.

MASTER/SLAVE, Two World Problem: The Essay | Al Turtle’s Relationship Wisdom

I’m studying up on master talk. Here is a link to Al’s main essay. There is also a link there to an MP3 which I bought.

MASTER/SLAVE, Two World Problem: The Essay | Al Turtle’s Relationship Wisdom

Certain words can clue you into MasterTalk:

‘is’ , ‘know’, ‘the fact that’, ‘reality’, ‘we’ or ‘you.’”

I am trying to get the idea, these little lists help a lot.

The way out, Friend/friend talk, includes phrases such as

  • I think
  • In my experience
  • I believe
  • The way I understand it is..

The are I statements about information – cognitive I statements.

I like Al’s definition:

NewImage

Note this is not a relativist position. There may well be one truth. But each of us has our own experience, leading us to our own conclusions and beliefs.

 

 

Sunday, 01 August 2021 — downloaded from Al’s website, to add a bit of redundancy to its survival.

 

Al Turtle’s Relationship Wisdom :: MASTER/SLAVE, Two World Problem: The Essay

 

MASTERSLAVE

 

Relations of the means of community

Takeover

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.

Who owns your relationships?

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. Production is social, ownership is private in capitalism.

We are seeing the virtual microcosm playing out the capitalism of the macrocosm.

And of course, the FB / FF takeover 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 & 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.

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.)

Tom Atlee has just written an excellent item on Town Hall Meetings, notice how important the framework is and how it determines the outcome. Even the simple idea of breaking up into Topic Tables would have a huge impact.

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. No one structure or method is best. What suits the purpose.