AOL EmailDear Tom,
Whilst i value all the different opinions expressed here, i can't help but take
exception to you using disrespectful nick names to describe Berty Hellinger. We
may not all agree with everything he says, but he is due a little more respect
than to be called silly names.
From my own perspective, I have worked with a number of clients where there
clearly is no turning back, or at least, it would be exceptionally hard for
them, perhaps more courage than they could muster. At times, the magnitude of
entanglements and the severity of the past events and events in the family
system do literally become 'just too much', we can only hope to assist the
client to slowly chip away at them, even then, at times, there is nothing much
we can do as facilitators except assist the client with a strengthening process
(representing an benevolent ancestor of strength for example, and have them
stand behind the client) in order to help them face their difficult fate.
There are many people that have difficult fates, and often these fates cannot
be reversed.
John
Johannesburg
This strikes me as yet another example of Bert speaking "ex cathedra" in his
role as Pope Suitbert I, making these existentially fatalistic pronouncements.
He also comes across as a kind of Old Testament prophet, reminding us of the
old "eye for an eye; tooth for tooth" law of karma. No mercy; only justice.
I have nothing against fatalism; the problem is where fatalism applies and
where it does not. For example, our physical bodies will fatalistically and
sometimes even fatally follow the law of gravity on earth. But the soul is not
at the same level of reality of the physical body, yet Suitbert insists on
making the "laws" of the soul as objective and fatalistic as the laws of
classical physics. Something is really amiss.
Where is the grace here? The grace that allows for the client's soul to
develop, no matter how entangled, no matter how far down the "wrong track" he
or she has gone without "getting the client "off the hook?" If there are "laws
of the soul" then their most obvious feature is that of balancing between two
extremes instead of making an encampment at one extreme and making
pronouncements from there. Or is this asking for too much "magical thinking" or
refusal to accept fate?
Actually, it is very paradoxical to think of antidepressants as an actual
"grace" solution to a deeply entangled patient, who may otherwise commit
suicide without the medication. Might then severe depression be the hopelessly
entangled state of the patient, thus at this "point of no return," except for
the grace of an antidepressant strong enough to regulate his brain chemistry?
Yet does not this very belief in brain chemistry over the soul and even spirit
express a form of physical fatalism?
Are there any other approaches or avenues that you think might balance things
out here? Thinking with the heart is being able to hold two contradictory
opposite poles at once. Thinking with the brain alone is ensconcement at one
extreme or the other.
Thomas
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "ConstellationTalk" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ConstellationTalk-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
