Good rejoinder, Thomas. I'm with you on this one.
My only contribution is to add to your statement:
"They may have lost connection with the source of love
inside themselves, and find themselves always searching
outside of themselves for it."
that,
After trauma/attachment/other therapeutic interventions,
the shamanic journey begins, at this point, as a return to
wholeness through ritual, ancestral and community callings,
divine worship, and the passage through non-ordinary reality
states.
I experience constellation work as the start of that journey.
Thanks for sparking an interesting discussion. You do us good
service in this way.
Susan Richey
Los Angeles, CA
PS. I wish Francesca Mason Boring would contribute to this
thread!
On Apr 12, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Thomas Bryson wrote:
Dear Hania,
I am glad that my post could stimulate your thinking.
Hellinger's clear seeing of the social mechanics which he called the
Orders of Love, has been a great contribution to psychology. Systemic
thinking, which had a history before Hellinger, is a critical piece. It
is an advance for trauma therapy to recognize that humans inherit
psychological, behavioral and emotional structures from our ancestors.
I am not criticizing Hellinger when I say that the orders of love are
more accurately called orders of survival. I am simply making it more
explicit that psychology is grounded in biology and the environment. The
human pack has found that the orders of survival are effective. That is
why we they are passed on and we have inherited them.
On the one hand, we have thousands of years of experience with death and
trauma. This legacy of experience has built what has been conceptually
simplified as the orders of survival. The orders are in our bones,
genome, behaviors and thoughts. They are completely intertwined with the
self-concept.
On the other hand, we have completely unconditioned, universal presence
which is love. It is not personal, even though we have a personal
experience of it. When a person didn't have presence reflected back to
them by their parents as a child, or were overwhelmed by their life
circumstances, they may have lost connection with something essential.
They may have lost connection with the source of love inside themselves,
and find themselves always searching outside of themselves for it.
It is confusing when we seek unconditioned love within our inherited
conditioned structures. True love isn't found in the structures, but
rather in the flow of presence.
All love,
Thomas Bryson
tb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Facilitation, training and counseling in person or by Skype.
Hania Moser wrote:
Thank you Thomas, your sharing is very important for me, as I have
some doubts regarding Hellinger concept, and I feel on the edge in my
way of following his science.
On the one side of this edge is my experience of profound changes in
family and individual life as the result of constellation. There are
situations where nothing else could help.
However these movements and knowing field are no one possession, and
Hellinger does not own the knowing field too.
On the other side of my edge is what you expressed in your e-mail
Thomas. What is Love?
I agree that natural rules of surviving are as they are, and they rule
part of our life in relationship with world outside us.
I think that Hellinger did big thing describing them; he called it
love derived from conscioussness, and primary need and right to
belong. It's true.
But he didn't answer what is Love. Some traces of seeking this answer
I see in his saying that when we become adults, we lose our sense of
innocence and we are lonely. As we don't follow anymore family system
conscience in a way of the need of belonging.
When I face person suffering unreversible damage caused by her/his
mother neglect, (like you said in your e-mail :When a child is not met
by presence, they learn that love is a business deal. You will love
me if I do what is right. I will love you if you behave the way I
want you to.") I can't say "reach your mother".
Some parents are dangerous for their children, and we can see it often.
In surviving of human kind, the life of mother is more important than
child's, and Hellinger said it clearly, describing family system
mechanisms.
But this is not Love.
Hiding Truth could serve surviving of family as a system (like hidden
truth about incest) but it is not Love.
Perpetrators are not equal to victims, as they took something from
their victims, like life or sens of safety. I feel very worry when
people say about perpetrators and victims as they are the same (unless
victim became perpetrator but this is another chapter).
I disagree when victim is publicly encouraged to love perpetrator, and
only move is wanted from victim to perpetrator, perpetrator remains
unchanged. Victim dignity is shattered again, this is no Love.
I wouldn't discover America when I say that many rules in family
constellations promoted by Hellinger are based on Old Testament with
Ten
2010/4/12 Peter Honer <pchoner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Well said Thomas.
cheers...Peter Honer
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Bryson
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:04 AM
Subject: [ConstellationTalk] Orders of Love revisited
Orders of Love Revisited
What Bert Hellinger labeled the 'Orders of Love,' aren't actually
about
love at all. They would be better called, Orders of Survival.
Hierarchy
between parents and children, belonging to the group and bonding
between
couples are mammalian in origin and actually have little to do with
love. They are functional survival strategies. They help the group,
the
individual and his or her genetic lineage to survive.
If one thinks of humans as a pack of wild dogs, hierarchy, belonging
and
bonding make perfect sense. They all aid survival. That is why when
we
do something that is against an order, we feel that we are doing
something wrong and it feels threatening. For a member of the pack
it is
dangerous to go against the top dog. It is dangerous to leave the
pack
and be isolated by a bigger predator. If we do not successfully mate
and
bond, our lineage ends.
Actual love is not based on behavior. That is the confusion that
children have when they think that if they don't do the 'right'
thing,
that they are not loved. Love comes from presence. When presence
meets
presence, love flows. When a child is not met by presence, they
learn
that love is a business deal. You will love me if I do what is
right. I
will love you if you behave the way I want you to.
The term Giving and Taking is also not accurate when it comes to
children. More accurate would be giving by the parents and receiving
by
the children. Taking is too active for an infant. If the child
doesn't
learn how to passively receive, it is generally because either the
parents are not there, are dangerous or else what is coming through
the
parents systemically is threatening. Then the child is right to move
away from the parents.
Taking is an active process that is later in development than
receiving.
If the child doesn't learn how to passively receive, later in life
he or
she may have difficulty taking – taking their place as an adult in
life.
And with difficulty taking, they will have difficulty giving –
giving
their gift to the world.
All love.
Thomas Bryson
tb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Facilitation, training and counseling in person or by Skype.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
