Consider: our normal way of life without reflection upon it, questioning of it, theorizing about it–without considering the intentionality that guides it–takes place in the natural attitude.  Yet, we cannot even create that term, “natural attitude,” from within the natural attitude.  We must shift from the natural attitude to the theoretical attitude (at least).  So, my question is this: when we as therapists move from noticing, observing the client in our natural flow of meeting and start wondering about such things as enduring life themes, are we really conducting a reduction or are we simply shifting from the natural attitude to the theoretical attitude, or even some of a vocational attitude (the vocation of the profession of gestalt therapy)?  When we pay closer attention to the other, having started in the natural attitude, are we involved in a reduction or simply focusing attention in a personalistic attitude? These different attitudes were identified by Husserl; we could certainly identify others with more contemporary terms, but my point, my question, is what is the difference between a phenomenological reduction and a shift in attitude?

Phil
______________
Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.