Hello all,

I was distracted by ANZAC ceremonies the other day, and had some other
thoughts I wanted to offer.

Re ontology

In Merleau-Ponty's sadly unfinished book, the Visible and the Invisible,
post the PhoP which many still quote, in the working notes  section, he
writes (from the Northwest University Studies edition writes:

Necessity to return to ontology - the ontological questioning and its
ramifications: The subject-object question, the question of
intersubjectivty, the question of Nature. (I wanted to put these in 
italics,but my program doesn't allow that)

From the foreward, M-P's work was now before him not behind him, requiring a
description of the human organism, animal behaviour, and an analysis of the 
phenomenon  of evolution.
I don't pretend to understand all of his thought processes, but they
resonate somewhat. Perhaps he would have moved on to ecosystems and
eco-therapy.  I'm more inclined now to agree with Heidegger, Dasein  (being
there), and being thrown into a world that already exists.

Incidentally, astrophysicists and astronomers recently claim that only 5% of
the universe's energies are visible, the rest is invisible -  dark matter 
and
dark energy. Not much success in detecting them, results are perplexing, and
theories are deficient. At least so far.

Re other ontologies/belief systems


In Mahayana Buddhism there are no gods, heaven or hells only just the
practice  of engaging with the illusion of self, accepting the world as it
is, compassion and other practices including not so much emphasis in
meditation. One Japanese interpretation of Chan, Zen, involves koans, 
presented by masters to students
such as:
"you cannot get it  by taking thought, you cannot get it by not taking
thought". Point being, to move from cognition to something more
experiential, reflective (after the event) and encouraging  insight and 
ability to free flow.

For disclosure, I don't believe in God, heaven and hell. Some forms of
Theravadist Buuddism have pantheons, and the belief in reincarnation, but I 
think they're
misguided. When my mother (brought up as a Presbyterian, as was I ) was on
her last legs, I asked her what did she thought about what happened 
initially when she
died, she said 'nothing'. I agree with her. The other half of my family was
conservative  Catholic, but not all of my cousins subscribed to that. 
Families!

To return to Karen's original questions, Fritz had it right, I think, in the
interdependent organism-environment  model. This applies from
microorganisms, creatures, and up to other social animals such as the great
apes, whales and humans. In the Bali monkey forest, I could groom monkeys
briefly , but they would then run away and steal sunglasses.
In a documentary on research on Orang-Utans, a mother,  years later, came
down form the trees, and presented her new young one to the researchers.
A moving experience to watch and some evidence for
cross species intelligence and interaction.

The self-other dichotomy, probably from Goodman's using Self as boundary
is problematic. Jean-Marie Robine's  survey on views of self had no
conclusion. Neither did an AAGT panel agree on what Field Theory was.
Perhaps ambiguity is in some ways healthy, but a challenge for students and
graduates, like going to a supermarket and picking out the products you
believe in.

The concept of boundaries is therefore suspect.  Cell membranes allow 
transfer of
materials both ways across membranes and into the membranes themselves. It's
all a set of nonlinear adaptive processes the recent explorations of 
epigenetics is an example.
Asking questions in not being an idiot. For me  relation trumps (sorry) 
individualistic.

In James Gleick's book "Chaos" he describes how many of the thinkers and 
scientists
in the 60s had concluded that was something else going on in our ways of
viewing the world, but didn't have the conceptual language to express it, so 
stayed
silent for a while. Nowadays it's generally known as Complexity Theory, that 
includes
fractals, and  self organising systems. Staemmler's call for moving with 
sciences of the time is appropriate, and I
know some folk have written some things in this area.

One example of a fractal is known as Koch's snowflake. Start with a triangle
and repetitively add smaller and smaller triangles on each side with similar 
proportions,  The length of the figure became infinite, yet
encloses a finite area. The more accurately you measure say for example the 
coastline of
Australia at smaller and smaller scales, the more it becomes infinite.

Imagine you're walking on a flattish sandy beach when tide is starting to
come in. Where is the boundary between sea and land? What do feel under your
feet, and see? A variety of organisms.

The idea of a contact boundary tends to be described as a thing, rather than 
nonlinear processes of interaction.

Enough already.

To quote Socrates: One thing I know, is that I know nothing.

Alan



































-----Original Message----- 
From: Jack Neggerman
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 12:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Differences In Gestalt Therapy Practice

>
>  And  now from a completely different angle.
>
>> When I think of the differences in Gestalt therapy- I first think of:
>> the Era and the Location. So this is from a totally different
>> perspective.
>>
>> I think of the late  60s version of Gestalt therapy, the 70s version, the
>> 80s version and forms that came afterwards. I think it has  evolved
>> significantly. Of course there must’ve been a 50s version- through early
>> 60s. I am less clear on what that was-  and then there is the approach
>> that Perls used in South Africa. I don’t know what that looked like
>> either. The 1947 book didn’t clarify that for me. Some combination of
>> psychoanalysis and early Gestalt or pre-Gestalt??
>>
>> A lot of methods have been dropped; and emphasis has changed. Underlying
>> assumptions perhaps they haven’t changed too on much. But I don’t want to
>> address specifics presently and get into the weeds.
>>
>> And of course, there’s the age old concern that some people have  called
>> themselves Gestalt therapists and were never deeply grounded in the
>> philosophy, theory, or methods.
>>
>> Back to Location-  I think of the New York approach, and then the
>> Cleveland approach, the West Coast approach, and then the British
>> approach, Italian approach, French approach, German approach.  I can’t
>> help but think it is practiced slightly differently in South America and
>> in all other parts of the world.
>>
>> Given that  Perls, Hefferline and Goodman was just published in Polish,
>> I think if someone was only exposed that material,  what would that
>> version look like like? Certainly not similar to “Late Perls”, his
>> version from 65 to 70, or a contemporary approach anywhere.
>>
>> Another consideration is: the varying biases and emphases of the worlds
>> Gestalt journals, (which likely change over time.)
>>
> To further mixup, or water down how the therapy is practiced, is that most
> of us were trained in other forms on our path to becoming a therapist.
> Then we may have studied 20 or 30 plus other therapy systems along the
> way. We may intentionally- or unintentionally integrate other learnings
> into our work. The old term was: “Gestalt And”. (What purist  Isadore From
> would hate.) This could be a benefit to healing outcomes- and also a
> threat to maintaining integrity of the system.
>
> How do you stay pure? I sure don’t know how to do it.
>
>> I think researching Gestalt therapy is an extremely difficult thing,
>> because what is Gestalt therapy? I think there are many, many versions of
>> it - that are not all that similar. United in name only.
>
>
> So my first consideration regarding the differences is to think of Era and
> Location, in terms of what is manifested or emphasized.
>
> And the researcher may be looking at a score of different versions- that
> aren’t the same thing at all.
>>
>
> Jack Neggerman

______________
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.