Interesting exchange. For me the map is not the territory and whilst I may have
my own often unconscious assumptions and beliefs, if I work phenomenologically
to the best of my ability, then I am guided by the field and what it brings via
the embodied experience of the representatives. Yes words can be useful
occasionally, particularly if they deeply resonate with the phenomenological
experience of client and/or representative but for me, mostly words cloud or
dilute the issue.
Equally we cannot say most facilitators work in this or that way. There are
now thousands of facilitators working in the field and many of them will not
necessarily work in the same way every time. I think we need to be cautious
about dogma or generalisations in our work. I recall somewhere Bert Hellinger
saying this was one of the reasons he was initially against having anything
written down.
In response to Chris' comments I would come at it from the other end of the
spectrum and see humility as the prime quality needed as facilitator. Many many
times, as client, representative and facilitator I have witnessed
constellations having effects which were
nothing at all to do with the client's original conscious intention but
nonetheless very valuable and very healing. I do not see this way of working as
lazy or lacking skill. Following or responding can be much harder than leading.
'No action' is often much harder than 'action'. We have to be so careful of our
egos in this work. We may think we are working in this or that way to influence
the field but in the end the field carries us where we need to go. And why
would you want to banish or send away anything? Everything and everyone
belongs.
best wishes from a beautifully sunny England
Barbara
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Apr 2015, at 12:48, "Heiki Eesmaa heiki.eesmaa@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk]" <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To the point of what the map of family constellations consists of: I think we
need to pay attention to how the limits of the use of representatives
structures the body of knowledge we have. In a visualization you can banish
or send away elements; if you send away a representative, he will sooner or
lately knock at the workshop door and ask to be re-admitted :) So that might
have to do a little with the principle of inclusion. The principles and tools
mutually condition one another.
But as to the question of how the map shapes what presents itself when
representatives are set up, I have been wondering about the same thing. There
is shaping happening before the constellator visibly intervenes.
all the best
Heiki
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Alison Fornes maitreya71@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Heiki,
Thanks for your response. As a point of clarification, I'm not referring to
the physical arrangements of the representatives as the "map".
Rather, what I'm suggesting is that in the subtle space of the Field, most
facilitators make sense of that space by pairing their intuition with their
"map". The map is made up of a set of principles, and insights/expectations
from previous experiences and from other teachers. My wondering is to what
degree this map shapes what presents itself when they set up the
representatives.
In your question, for example, you named some of the basic principles
Hellinger identified (exlusion, order, balancing give and take). This is
your map (and mine as well, usually).
I am inclined to agree that different maps give different results. This is
true in our ordinary physical space as well. Most western trained
psychotherapists use a map (their understanding of the inner psychological
space) that doesn't include an ancestors. From the view of most
constellators, that map reveals a very limited landscape.
Your question of the many ways to do a constellation is a good one. Perhaps
others will comment on that.
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Heiki Eesmaa heiki.eesmaa@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With classic constellations, the tools (setting up representatives) and the
map (consisting visually of the ideal image of family and of the rules of
systemic order) come together harmoniously. The image of the family would
be much harder to work with purely in the mind's eye.
On the other hand, when using representatives in another map, yeah,
everything seems to work, somewhat, but the field feels much less neat.
Also, in another map, there is a question as to what extent principles of
family constellations apply -- yes, there are certain elements that must
belong or be included, but what are these? How do we find out the hierarchy
between them, assuming there is one? How to work with balancing give and
take in another map?
Also, is the minimalist, so-called 'phenomenological' stance still helpful?
(This one though I have the least questions about.)
I admit all of the above might be a question of developing the craft skills
of constellation work, but perhaps the artistic vision is placing
impossible demands on the craft? Sure you could do a constellation on
muscle tension, but perhaps there is still a place for bodywork :/
all the best
Heiki
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Alison Fornes maitreya71@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm fresh off of a beautiful weekend workshop facilitated by Jakob and
Sieglinde Schneider, so I've got lots of thoughts I'm processing.
What I'm interested in are the maps that we use when we are in the Field.
Clearly, all of us are familiar with and probably apply Bert's map,
recognizing the orders of love and other dynamics at play. Franz Ruppert
has a map of trauma that he applies with his constellations of intention
(which I only know academically, not through personal experience). Other
maps may be more shamanic, working with soul retrievals and fragments of
the self, others may be from a psychological view of the interior, such as
the inner child. Dan Booth Cohen uses a map of the Three Dimensions of
Consciousness.
I am curious about our maps and how conscious we are of them. What I am
noticing is how each map has it's own features, and through the observer
effect, actually creates the landscape of the Field that we experience
when we work.
I have had the thought that I would like to be knowledgeable of many maps,
and intentional about which I am using each time I enter the Field.
--
It is the courageous heart that loves. It is the loving heart that heals.
alisonfornes.com
--
It is the courageous heart that loves. It is the loving heart that heals.
alisonfornes.com
