Dear Peter,
I don’t believe I misunderstand Husserl on the natural attitude, nor on the attitudes in general. No. Thanks, Dan, for your note of agreement on the attitudes.  I have read Husserl, and I’ve read some pretty hefty Husserl scholars on this issue (Sebastian Left for instance, to whom I’ve pointed repeatedly) , and I’ve talked personally with Scott Churchill, Editor of the Humanistic Psychologist, Div. 32 of the APA, no slouch of a Husserl scholar himself.  In fact, he’s the one who pointed me to the appendix in Crisis where Husserl talks about the attitudes. He understands what I was talking about and did not see any particular problem with it. Rather than bracketing the client’s presentation, his or her presenting of self, I would try to become curious about it. This is different than setting it aside and reducing it. Doing something TO it in order to make it come out on the other side as something other than it is. Being curious about the client, as the client presents, in the personalistic-natural attitude, does not mean accepting at face value the verity of what the client says, his or her theories about himself or the situation. To me, it simply means accepting the client as a given phenomenon, and AS given. Then exploring that. I honestly think this is what the majority of gestalt therapists do.  They say things like, “What is that like?” Or they self disclose their experience upon hearing the client describe their lives in very down to earth terms, and give a sounding board to the client. All within the personalistic-natural attitude.  

“Who we are becoming with each other…” That is a focus? 

“Hi. I am an alcoholic and I risk relapse being with my husband because he won’t stop drinking in my presence.”
“When you say that I feel sad.”
Looks surprised at the therapist. “Okay. Do you know anything about addiction?”
“Were you uncomfortable with what I said?”
“Just puzzled.”
“Yes, the situation seems puzzling to me too.”
“Is that what it is for you?”
“Being here with you, I feel we’re both getting a bit confused.”
“I see. I understand. I AM wondering what I’m doing here right now.”
“See?”
“Yes.  Good-bye.”

OR

“Hi. I am an alcoholic and I risk relapse being with my husband because he won’t stop drinking in my presence.”
“Have you relapsed because of this?”
“Several times. I left him once, but then he convinced me to come back, and I did.”
“I am curious why you came back.”
“Against my better judgement.”
“Yes.  But why did you come back?”
“I feel lonely and scared without him.”
“Oh. What do you want more, to be sober or to be with your husband?”
“I want him to quit drinking too, so that I can be with him.”
“I don’t know that you get that choice. Do you?


> On Jun 27, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Peter Philippson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> And it's gone again.
> 
> You know I think you fundamentally misunderstand Husserl on the natural attitude and on attitudes in general.  I NEVER conduct therapy in the natural attitude.  That is fine, I can face those disagreements, but I can't continue the discussion when to me the terms you are using make no sense.
> 
> Furthermore, I was not using the example of the pedals to make the person one pedal and the field the other.  I was using it to describe a field approach where a left pedal (or sleeve) only has meaning in relation to the right pedal and the chain.
> 
> My focus in therapy, to repeat what I said before, is not theory, or person, but who we are becoming with each other.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com
> 
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 19:47, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Peter and Dan,
> First, Peter, I enjoyed reading this response from you. I found it more inviting and open to possibilities for meeting, even though you also share your wondering if that might actually happen.  I don’t know if it will happen either. But … maybe.
> 
> And Dan, it is as Peter says in the third paragraph, but more I think. This goes to conversations you and I used to have about the natural attitude and how I would maintain that therapy is conducted in the natural attitude, not the philosophical attitude, and not even in the professional attitude unless one is hopelessly seduced by the positivism in managed care and CBT.  It’s in the personalistic attitude (a subset of the natural attitude).  So, given that, given that what we are attempting is to establish and nurture a personal relationship with the client, how important is it to take the perspective, MAKE the perspective dominant of one pedal over the other? The person, rather than the field. How important is the mindset of meeting a person rather than of dealing with a field? A person, a subject, rather than an impersonal object, a field.
> 
> I know they are of the same bicycle. So what? Would not doubling down on that, in the conscious approach of the therapist to the client, leave one daydreaming about theory, which would be meeting the client in a theoretical attitude? 
> 
> I know that all these attitudes (from phenomenology) are not very useful to some, but they make a lot of sense to me.  I remember doing a training for a gestalt institute in Australia, and as the people observed how I worked, they began to say that they were seeing a more patient approach to the client that was different from the faster moving pace of doing things like experiments and such—to me a kind of pushing.  Well, I realized after reading Husserl and others who explicate him that the difference in approach was as a manifestation of one attitude over another.  So, the original question I think goes to the importance of attitude/perspective in supporting oneself to meet the client. Are we meeting a person and becoming fascinated by the uniqueness of that person, or are we translating that person into what is really our main fascination—a field.
> 
> Phil
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 12:19 PM, Peter Philippson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Phil,
>> 
>> We've been over this a number of times, and not really got to meeting each other.
>> 
>> With you, I am usually engaged in thinking, discussing, arguing, at times sharing bits of our lives.  Earlier I was in a neighbour's garden drinking coffee, watching the hens and the cat interacting, enjoying the sun and breeze on my arms, talking about things going on in our community.  At another point I was responding to the sensei of the aikido club who has found a possible new venue, which I have mixed feelings about because it is in a potentially quite violent area.  From a perspective of a person inhabiting fields, I'm responding to you, you to me.  But it's actually a lot more complex: your question belongs in the field of our interactions, and the way we answer is the ground of your asking as much as the way you ask being the ground of our answer.  It is not linear in time or causality.  And the way we will probably go back and forth and not reach any meeting is also part of our expectations.  But then new things can happen where we slide into a new connection for no obvious reason.
>> 
>> Another good example is the two-slit quantum experiment.  If I am an observer in the field, you have to say that, by some kind of magic, what observation I make changes what happens.  A very dissatisfying idea to me.  If we are all inseparable parts of a field that is constrained by the laws of physics, and a non-linear process (that you could call 'observation') happens, you can say something far more straightforward: that there is a coherent movement in the field of the observation being done way and showing one thing, and another coherent movement with a different observation and result shown.  There is no causality.
>> 
>> Third example: a bicycle has a left pedal and a right pedal, but the left pedal is meaningless without the right pedal and vice versa.  They are only part of a bicycle in pairs, and with a chain and so on.  I remember working for a clothing company where the manager walked out and for a day the company only produced right sleeves which blocked the aisles but were not able to become part of coats because there were no left sleeves.
>> 
>> I hope that has some meaning to you.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> 
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 18:56, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Kind of. Is it all the same? When you sit with a client, are you sitting with a field or a person? What difference does it make if the therapist takes one perspective or the other? 
>> 
>> > On Jun 27, 2021, at 11:47 AM, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > 
>> > ?
>> > 
>> > Difference between a field and a person?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> On Jun 27, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> What is the difference between a field, composed partially of persons, and a person inhibiting diverse fields?
>> >> ______________
>> >> 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.
>> > 
>> > ______________
>> > 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.
>> 
>> ______________
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Peter (Philippson)
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ______________ 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.
> 
> ______________ 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Peter (Philippson)
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________ 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.

______________
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.