![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Schisms and the expression thereof
Aug. 15th, 2008 12:39 pmI've been sitting on this post for a couple of days, waiting to see if my irritation faded or if I found something profound to say on the topic, but pretty much the burn is still there while depth of content seems to be escaping me.
I returned from my trip to Canmore, Alberta on Monday (or, really, Tuesday, but I left and was supposed to be back on Monday), and overall it was a great time. But one aspect of it continues to leave a sour taste in my mouth: The treatment of people (present and not, alive and dead) by prominent individuals in the Dabrowski community.
Roughly 30 years ago, there was a falling out between the late Dr. Dabrowski and his co-author and friend, Dr. Piechowski, over Dr. Piechowski's edits and additions to the English language of a book of theirs that was about to come out. Without spending a lot of time on the details, suffice it to say that Dr. Dabrowski felt that his ideas were being misrepresented in the name of efficacy and sales. He communicated this quite effectively to, among others, his last student who received the legacy to preserve and grow Dab's theory. Unfortunately, Dab died just a couple years later, leaving no real time for the disagreement to heal between him and Dr. P.
30 years later, it is as if the wound is still fresh and bleeding. At the conference, one presentation spent more than half of its allocated 45 minutes shredding the professional and personal reputation of Abe Maslow. Why? Because one of the core aspects of the dispute was that Dr. Piechowski likened Level IV (Organized Multi-Level Disintegration) to Maslow's Self-Actualized Man. It was not enough for the presenter to clarify exactly what Maslow said and meant about the S-A Man. He had to go into what Maslow said about his mother, rape, and heaven knows what else!
The shame of it was that the final 15-20 minutes of the presentation was important and worthwhile stuff, looking at how to take ideas from each of Maslow and Dabrowski to extend the theories.
The crap expressed itself in other ways, as well. For another example, on the first full day, as the schedule slipped, an announcement was made that lunch would be pushed back 15 minutes so a (favored) presenter could have a full session. On the second day, the same slippage happened - but the (unfavored) presenters were not accorded the same opportunity and lunch was not pushed back. When they were stopped, they negotiated permission to finish after the last session (mine).
But when I finished, the leaders of the conference (including the Maslow presenter) gave 'closing remarks,' to symbolize the end of the conference. It was only when I asked if we could have more of the other presenter that we were grudgingly told "If you want to." They then left - but at least half the attendees stayed for what proved to be a stimulating and extended presentation. (I think we got almost twice as much of them as we would have had they simply been given their original timeframe!)
*******
This was all on top of what I felt was somewhat unfortunate conference management by the coordinators. The keynote really doesn't get the theory. Another presenter started by explaining "I haven't actually read Dabrowski's own work..." And, for all that I found the discussion that ensued to be somewhat interesting, a session expressly designed for the presenter to gather information seems inappropriate, especially in a single track conference.
Ah yes, the single tracking... Friday - 9:00 to 4:15pm, and then Saturday - 8:45am to 4pm. 1 hour keynote on Friday (that ran 75 minutes, instead), and 15 forty-five minute sessions over the two days, some of which ran wrong. (I know - you're shocked.) A lunch period each day of 1 hour. That leaves 30 minutes of breathing room each day - too little, in my opinion. (I simply skipped out on session that were too basic for words. That gave me the space I needed. Not everybody is prepared to be 'rude' that way.)
*******
The crap has been going on for years, and I have remarked on it before. "Which side are you on?" has been asked of me by one side. The other side just wants the mistreatment to go away.
Somehow, I think Dabrowski would be appalled.
I returned from my trip to Canmore, Alberta on Monday (or, really, Tuesday, but I left and was supposed to be back on Monday), and overall it was a great time. But one aspect of it continues to leave a sour taste in my mouth: The treatment of people (present and not, alive and dead) by prominent individuals in the Dabrowski community.
Roughly 30 years ago, there was a falling out between the late Dr. Dabrowski and his co-author and friend, Dr. Piechowski, over Dr. Piechowski's edits and additions to the English language of a book of theirs that was about to come out. Without spending a lot of time on the details, suffice it to say that Dr. Dabrowski felt that his ideas were being misrepresented in the name of efficacy and sales. He communicated this quite effectively to, among others, his last student who received the legacy to preserve and grow Dab's theory. Unfortunately, Dab died just a couple years later, leaving no real time for the disagreement to heal between him and Dr. P.
30 years later, it is as if the wound is still fresh and bleeding. At the conference, one presentation spent more than half of its allocated 45 minutes shredding the professional and personal reputation of Abe Maslow. Why? Because one of the core aspects of the dispute was that Dr. Piechowski likened Level IV (Organized Multi-Level Disintegration) to Maslow's Self-Actualized Man. It was not enough for the presenter to clarify exactly what Maslow said and meant about the S-A Man. He had to go into what Maslow said about his mother, rape, and heaven knows what else!
The shame of it was that the final 15-20 minutes of the presentation was important and worthwhile stuff, looking at how to take ideas from each of Maslow and Dabrowski to extend the theories.
The crap expressed itself in other ways, as well. For another example, on the first full day, as the schedule slipped, an announcement was made that lunch would be pushed back 15 minutes so a (favored) presenter could have a full session. On the second day, the same slippage happened - but the (unfavored) presenters were not accorded the same opportunity and lunch was not pushed back. When they were stopped, they negotiated permission to finish after the last session (mine).
But when I finished, the leaders of the conference (including the Maslow presenter) gave 'closing remarks,' to symbolize the end of the conference. It was only when I asked if we could have more of the other presenter that we were grudgingly told "If you want to." They then left - but at least half the attendees stayed for what proved to be a stimulating and extended presentation. (I think we got almost twice as much of them as we would have had they simply been given their original timeframe!)
*******
This was all on top of what I felt was somewhat unfortunate conference management by the coordinators. The keynote really doesn't get the theory. Another presenter started by explaining "I haven't actually read Dabrowski's own work..." And, for all that I found the discussion that ensued to be somewhat interesting, a session expressly designed for the presenter to gather information seems inappropriate, especially in a single track conference.
Ah yes, the single tracking... Friday - 9:00 to 4:15pm, and then Saturday - 8:45am to 4pm. 1 hour keynote on Friday (that ran 75 minutes, instead), and 15 forty-five minute sessions over the two days, some of which ran wrong. (I know - you're shocked.) A lunch period each day of 1 hour. That leaves 30 minutes of breathing room each day - too little, in my opinion. (I simply skipped out on session that were too basic for words. That gave me the space I needed. Not everybody is prepared to be 'rude' that way.)
*******
The crap has been going on for years, and I have remarked on it before. "Which side are you on?" has been asked of me by one side. The other side just wants the mistreatment to go away.
Somehow, I think Dabrowski would be appalled.
