Dear Sherry –
I agree that Comfort/Discomfort are more accessible than Guilt/Innocence. You
may notice that when you build the explanation using packaged terms which you
do not completely understand, your listeners are discomforted. What is
important is apply our own inquisitiveness and intelligence to understand what
we perceive, then to speak with authenticity to those who are interested.
Dan
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of S WALTERS
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:26 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Explaining Guilt and Innocence as Regulators
of Conscience
Dear Dan
Am I being too simplistic by suggesting that when referring to the guilt and
innocence in the personal conscience, I use discomfort and comfort because that
is the way it makes you feel when you try to make changes that endanger your
belonging to the group. Discomfort can then be explored to expose
indebtedness, shame, fear but the initial feeling is discomfort. I find people
English people understand this far easier than guilt because it is as others
have said; guilt has connotations with blame and provokes a defense which isn't
helpful.
~Thank you so much for this topic, as a newbie i have learned so much and
thought much on the issue
Best wishes
Sherry
________________________________
From: "Dan Booth Cohen, PhD" <danboothcohen@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:danboothcohen%40gmail.com> >
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011, 15:04
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] Explaining Guilt and Innocence as Regulators
of Conscience
Dear Chris -
Yes, I am confusing and confused.
Let me take a step back and approach an answer to the original question from
a different side.
"Could someone please explain the terms Guilty vs Innocent?"
I rarely employ these terms and never when attempting to introduce
Constellations to those who are unfamiliar with the process.
Last week, I delivered a course at the Milton Erickson Foundation's Congress
on Ericksonian Approaches to Hypnosis and Psychotherapy in Phoenix, AZ. My
topic was, Systemic Family Constellations: A Broken Heart Can Heal.Sometimes
in One Beat. I prepared a short Power Point presentation with 4 slides:
Lineage of Systemic Constellations, Key Principles, 4 Step Process in
Individual Sessions, Observed Effects.
Here are the bullet points for Key Principles:
. Deals with Emotional Subjective Inner World
. Trans-Generational Transmission of Trauma
. Consciousness Includes Individual, Systemic and Continuous
Dimensions
. Life is a Persistent Phenomena
. Representative Perception
. Suffering and Symptoms are Expressions of Disconnection
I am continually experimenting and testing different word combinations and
phrases to connect with different audiences. It is always a work in
progress.
I did not intend to challenge those of you who successfully convey the
meaning of guilt and innocence as regulators of conscience. My message is
directed to others who are confused and then confusing when using these
terms. My suggestion is to find other words.
Dan
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Chris Walsh
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:52 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] Explaining Guilt and Innocence as
Regulators of Conscience
Dear Dan
With all due respect you are confusing personal conscience and guilt with
personal guilt yet again. I have tried to be quite clear as has Hellinger
that they are quite different and operate at different levels. I agree with
you that systemic guilt is a difficult construct and not very user friendly.
As you say Hellinger does correctly state that we don't even feel systemic.
On the other hand personal guilt is clearly understood and an easily
recognisable feeling for most people. Hellinger does not deny that. When you
conflate levels of guilt/conscience you end up throwing out the baby with
the bathwater by looking for different terms. Hellinger's deepening of the
understanding of personal guilt is both easy to understand it is and
liberating. (That is the baby) I recommend we keep that and use different
terminology when explaining systemic guilt. (That is the bathwater)
hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
Specialist Suite 6
Bromham Place
Behind The Melbourne Clinic
130 Church St, Richmond, 3121
(Melbourne, Australia)
ph: +61 (0)3 9487 4647
fax: +61 (0)3 9487 4646
web: <http://www.cwalsh.com.au/> www.cwalsh.com.au
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Dan Booth Cohen,
PhD
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011 4:18 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] Explaining Guilt and Innocence as
Regulators of Conscience
Dear Chris -
Thanks for delving into these details of language and meaning.
Regarding your dictionary definition, it supports my assertion. According to
the book of common usage, guilt is either a fact or a feeling. According to
Hellinger, "Systemic conscience works through us although we do not feel
it." The guilt he refers to is neither fact nor is it felt. It fits neither
definition.
I absolutely agree with you about the importance of Hellinger's discovery.
If I appear to be disputing his findings, then my message is being
misunderstood. What he taught me is confirmed again and again. I embrace his
insights. Our debate is over whether it is practical to add a third
definition or is it better to find words that can convey the same meaning
without being redefined.
The initial question came from FG who wrote, "Guilty vs Innocent? New to
this work! Could someone please explain these two terms being used by Bert
Hellinger?" Your explanation of the meaning is excellent. My response is
directed to those who grasp the meaning and still have difficulty explaining
these terms. My suggestion is to consider finding different words. In
either case, the meaning is the same.
Dan
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Chris Walsh
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:12 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Explaining Guilt and Innocence as
Regulators of Conscience
Dear Dan,
I believe you have actually highlighted the point of confusion without
clarifying it. Firstly it is important to distinguish between individual
conscience/guilt and systemic conscience/guilt. Systemic guilt is about
protecting the integrity of the group as a whole. It doesn't particularly
care about the welfare of isolated individuals. That discussion is much more
confusing and is for another day.
My discussion here is restricted to individual guilt which serves the
purpose of protecting the belonging of the individual to the group. This
belonging is crucial. In the tribal groups within which we evolved our very
survival depended on it.
Every dictionary definition of guilt I can find has two components:
1. The fact of guilt when someone has broken the law or some other moral
code and
2. The feeling of guilt when someone has the feeling that they have
transgressed whether they have or not.
This feeling is very clearly felt my many people even when they can't make
any sense of it in terms of any known transgression. It is a FEELING that
people identify as guilt. Guilt is a feeling that most of us know in our
hearts minds and bodies regardless of the dictionary definition. People then
make the mistake of trying to atone to get rid of the unpleasant feeling of
guilt especially as they believe they must have done something morally
wrong.
Hellinger looked beyond the superficial dictionary to a deeper
phenomenological exploration of the feeling and its function. He discovered
in this way that we experience the feeling of guilt when there is a threat
to our belonging to other person or group. This explanation actually works
much better at explaining the cause of the feeling of guilt than does the
traditional dictionary definition. People feel very relieved with this
explanation as now their FEELINGS (not their dictionary definitions) make
much better sense. They can now agree to carry their guilt especially if
that is the price they have to pay for their own personal development.
An example of this would be the youngest child who feels guilty leaving hime
at the age of 28 leaving his mother to struggle with an empty nest and a
difficult relationship with the father. Nonetheless if the parents overtly
encourage the child to leave home, it is very difficult to make sense of the
feeling guilt in terms of having done something wrong. When people think
like this about the feeling of guilt they often became paralysed believing
that they must somehow be doing something reprehensible. When they
understand that the feeling of guilt is simply a warning that their
belonging is threatened in the same way that physical pain is a warning that
our body is threatened, they realise that now have a real choice. That is
liberating. They are now free to decide that their guilt may well be worth
enduring.
Hellinger's deeper understanding of the feeling of guilt also explains how
we can feel guilty in relation to one group and innocent on the same matter
in relation to another group where our belonging is not threatened. In the
above example the young man would probably not feel guilty about moving out
of home when he thinks about it in relation to his peers who have already
moved out of their parents' homes ! in other words this understanding
because of its deeper authenticity turns out to be much more useful.
Hellinger has given us a far more useful definition of the feeling of guilt
than we have ever had before. It is my view that the feeling of guilt was
around in evolution millennia before complex moral systems were developed.
In fact it makes sense that these moral systems probably evolved from the
feeling of guilt. I have found that getting clear on this explanation has
helped many people deal with the feeling of guilt much more effectively
whether they have a constellation or not. This is not just a different
definition of the feeling of guilt. It is in fact s deeper perception of a
meaning that was always there but never clearly articulated before Hellinger
did so. In my view it is a major advance in our understanding and we should
not shy away from elucidating this for others when appropriate.
hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chris%40cwalsh.com.au>
<mailto:chris%40cwalsh.com.au>
<mailto:chris%40cwalsh.com.au>
<mailto:chris%40cwalsh.com.au>
Melbourne Australia
tel: +61 (0)3 9487 4647
fax + 61 (0)3 9487 4646
www.cwalsh.com.au
On 15/12/2011, at 1:42 PM, Dan Booth Cohen, PhD wrote:
