Walter Logeman: Journal
This video is worth watching.
I’m particularly interested in how she names the couple dynamics, the dance that people have. I like the way that couples devise their own name for them.
In this way couples can create dialogues they think will particularly address the dance.
Here is her book on Amazon
Safety
Connection
Passion – full aliveness – relaxed
Beyond conflict – tension but not oppositional.
~
The quality of the presence is what counts – not the words or the behaviour.
Dr. James Hillman Live at Mythic Journeys Part 1
Continue reading “Dr. James Hillman Live at Mythic Journeys”
55 minutes worth watching
Context collapse
participant observation
Wallace Shawn (My diner with Andre) at occupy Wall Street
This is an excellent talk on the nature of the relationship: This is th imago philosophy well presented.
11 November 2012 International Crossing the Bridge Day
There is meant to be a way to put this on my blog, not (only) on the Storify site. But it does not seem to work.
Never the less, this is a slice of the Moranien psychodrama mentions on the net on July 9 2011. Some good stuff there. (I thought I’d posted this before? – perhaps it was one of the ones that got lost in the db crash?)
Janet Echelman: Taking imagination seriously
This is inspiring. It takes two to mess up a relationship, but only one to fix it.
Further to the last post, look at this video (thanks Josh)
It seems to me they all agree on the question where does “good” come from. Steven Rose is systemic in his thinking, Dawkins more reductionist.
Background to this discussion:
Steven Rose – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Research and scientific controversies With Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin, Rose championed the “radical science movement.”[3][page needed] The three criticized sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and adaptationism, most prominently in the book Not in Our Genes (1984), laying out their opposition to Sociobiology (E. O. Wilson, 1975), The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins, 1976), and other works promoting an evolutionary explanation for human social behaviour. Not in Our Genes described Dawkins as “the most reductionist of sociobiologists”. In retort, Dawkins wrote that the book practices reductionism by distorting arguments in terms of genetics to “an idiotic travesty (that the properties of a complex whole are simply the sum of those same properties in the parts)”, and accused the authors of giving “ideology priority over truth”.[4] Rose replied in the 2nd edition of his book Lifelines. Rose wrote further works in this area; in 2000 he jointly edited with the sociologist Hilary Rose, a critique of evolutionary psychology: Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. In 2006 he wrote a paper dismissing classical heritability estimates as useful scientific measures in respect of human populations especially in the context of IQ.[5] Rose was for several years a regular panellist on BBC Radio 4’s ethics debating series The Moral Maze.[1] Rose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.