Hello Michael, Andrew and others,
Thankyou for the opportunity to reflect upon the present substance inducing
sharings of late. Michael I would like to comment on the issues that you so
rightly see as needing to be dealt with by each individual in the group. You
say........
First, it is so strange in a way
that the man who taught us so much about what binds families and
groups together is so clearly not someone who pays that much attention
to the needs of groups. Groups need not just random inclusion (as
opposed to exclusion), but also careful communication and HARMONIOUS
inclusion.
Michael I do not see this as strange. To me, the strangeness is that human mind
seeks careful communication and harmonious inclusion when the whole of nature
simply flowers, uniquely, individually and absolutely alone. The way I see it
is that Hellinger, as many Masters have done before him, paid attention to the
needs of groups for the first 10 years of his work. I understand his actions
were in accordance with life and organic growth itself. In a way he tended to
the roots of beings. Seeds were planted and deep strong roots were grown in the
safety of love, order, balance and heirarchy. Here random inclusion, careful
communication and harmonious inclusion were paramount. The agreement, bonding
and cohesiveness of belonging itself was the source of strong and deep roots. I
agree with you when you recognise however that "groups need not just random
inclusion." When roots are strong, flowers bloom by themselves. The needs of
the flower are not the same
as the roots. For flowers to bloom, belonging to the darkness and the seed
disappear. The movement is beyond belonging. The seed is destroyed, the
darkness diappears, the cohesiveness dissipates and the need for inclusion of
all elements of growth are no longer needed. The flower has fullfilled its
potential, its destiny. Giving and taking is not an issue any more, neither is
balance ..........for what follows the flowers blooming is death. This is the
only harmonious inclusion that facilitates life. ..........and yes.......again
I agree with you when you say........."The regeneration in new
people of what is essential to the group's spirit rests on this
process."
Death I mean.
The taking of cues from those that come before is only relevant before the
flowering of crystalized individuality. After that it is a mater of life or
death only.
Of course your mind will be against that.........
"The only thing I come out somewhat absolutely against is
oversimplified, black and white, either-or thinking. I'm either-or
about either-or thinking."
It does'nt want to die.
To be or not to be, that is the eternal question.
Life knows no either, or, and it is black and white, dark and light and it is
very simple.
Kind regards Sadhana
________________________________
From: Michael Reddy <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] The Future of Constellation Work
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for posting your opening remarks on this subject. To my mind,
anyway, all of what you say has truth in it.
I tend to think history will judge Bert Hellinger as a great explorer
and innovator who connected aboriginal and Western cultures in a
crucial way, and gave the world a huge gift. He is what he is, and
that is, in the broadest context--perfect. As you point out, even his
sometimes crusty way has produced many positive outcomes for us
(general freedom to innovate, splintering of early followers who
developed things further, freedom to combine, awareness of many
problems with "helping" too much, and so on).
That said, I still think there is a bit of a paradox here, and some
issues we might have to deal with. First, it is so strange in a way
that the man who taught us so much about what binds families and
groups together is so clearly not someone who pays that much attention
to the needs of groups. Groups need not just random inclusion (as
opposed to exclusion), but also careful communication and HARMONIOUS
inclusion. Those who come after do take their cues from those who
come before, both verbal and non-verbal. The regeneration in new
people of what is essential to the group's spirit rests on this
process. When people who are too easily included raise problems with
priorities of competency, or upset the balance of giving and taking by
taking things only those around longer ought to take--disruptions
reverberate through the system. These things too, along with the need
for freedoms to explore and be different, are part of human nature.
Hellinger to me was for most of his life like one of the early
"mountain men" that first went into the wild and aboriginal world of
the US rocky mountains. They were happiest on lone explorations. And
they were in flight from most forms of group organization. When
people and culture caught up with them they moved on as long as they
could. We need such people. But we also need people whose
sensibilities are tuned to the needs of larger collective culture.
Doesn't Hellinger himself say that in arguing for a universal
conscience?
Once you tune into the idea of a "community of practice," various
questions arise. I have seen this in software development, business
practices, and so on. While I don't think we have much in the way of
explicit ideas about what constitute "best practices" (except perhaps
in Europe), I think its also OK if some of us are looking tentatively
towards finding such ideas. In that regard, I don't see the future of
constellation work ensured by utter freedom and inclusion. Chris has
made a similar point about what belongs as discussion on this list.
This issue for me comes down to finding a healthy, resilient balance
between inclusion and exclusion. I would want to say any organization
or community has to face that. Sure anybody can do what they want.
That's the beauty of the human form in a way. And some of these
people will strike gold that the rest of us end up sharing. At the
same time, some are just untrained and don't know what they are
getting into. And irresponsible hacks who (do exist) and do sometimes
parade under the banner of this or that legitimate, pre-existing
approach can also set those approaches back. So there's a need for
consolidation after periods of exploration, you might say.
Consolidation in our case would seem to require a great deal of
openness, and perhaps might lead to saying well, there are different
kinds of approaches to be distinguished, with different values for
different kinds of needs.
Anyway, thank you for taking the bull by the horns and raising these
questions. The only thing I come out somewhat absolutely against is
oversimplified, black and white, either-or thinking. I'm either-or
about either-or thinking.
Best,
Michael
Michael Reddy, PhD, CPC, ELI-MP
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reddyworks.com
Holistic Health & Happiness
DIAL IN TO OUR FREE, WEEKLY, QUESTION & ANSWER
TELECONFERENCE--THE CONSTELLATION CALL
Q&A on Family Constellations and Coaching
Tuesdays 8-8:45 PM EST
(530) 216 4363 PIN 481775#
What is The Constellation Call?
On Feb 9, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Andrew Watson wrote:
So I'll get straight to the point (and I purposefully mean this to be
provocative and conducive to further discussion):
If Hellinger had been all sweetness and light, coupled with his
brilliance and
insight -- if he had been accepted the world over, given the Nobel
Peace
Prize or whatever -- how many facilitators would have stood up and
said
"No, I disagree with you and am going to follow my own path"?
I'm not saying all this divisiveness was on purpose, but let's look
at the
effects on the entire field of constellation work: many, many people
feel free
enough to disagree with Hellinger, to develop their own findings and
methods, and that has immeasurably enriched the practice of this work.
Hell, if you want to, you can take a workshop from someone who does
Reiki
and constellation work, then from someone who does constellations in
organizations, then past lives, then nature constellations,
then...and then...
And very facilitator has their own perspective on certain issues --
even if
that perspective "contradicts" Hellinger's.
And what is the end result of all this? This work will not die with
Hellinger. Nor (in my opinion) will it lose its way -- because EVERY
way is
its way. There are so many facilitators the world over who have
taken the
initiative to develop their own methods, to make their own
contributions to
the field, that this momentum that has been generated won't be easily
stopped. And since, for many facilitators (I imagine), that crisis of
identity -- who am I as a facilitator who is no longer a student of
Hellinger?
-- has already passed, many people will not need to go through it
when
Hellinger passes on.
And, as with everything, this freedom, this momentum, has come with
a price
-- heavier for some than for others.
The question, then, is: do we need to bring unity to this diversity?
Or is it
enough to give people many options?
Another question: can we take this divisiveness (and here I'm
partially
referring to the fact that people who have studied with Hellinger
are not
always looked well on by others) and transform it into respect? Is it
possible for us to look upon other facilitators who do the work in
an entirely
different way and respect that? Does the entire world need to
conform to
my vision of constellation work?
