Re: [ConstellationTalk] phenomenology
- From: Max Dauskardt <max@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:21:04 +1000
Hi Chris, Dan, David et al,
Chris Walsh wrote:
Thanks Dan that makes sense.
Would you or others call noticing the discomfort of the 2 representatives
phenomenological or is that too much of a judgement?
The showing of discomfort is the phenomenological bit -assuming that
any other unbiased observer would as well
perceive discomfort.
If instead I said I
noticed slight squirming in those 2 representatives, would that be
phenomenological?
The noticing is still only a door opener bringing us in touch with the
phenomenon
the beginning of the tight rope act we are walking during each
constellation.
What about noticing my own reactions and internal
sensations in my body - Is that regarded as part of the phenomenological
method?
David put it nicely, that is our personal phenomenology; which entails
the potential of our being lead astray,
the more we watch ourselves the further we may move away from what is
happening in front of us.
Hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
In this context let me bring two moments of a recent workshop to the forum:
1. With no informative talk in front of the group I suggest to the
seeker to start the constellation simply with just her parents.
She agrees and selects the reps herself.
She first places her mother fairly close to the ring of chairs
looking out. With her father she takes more time and puts him
three metres to the left of her mum, one metre behind looking in her
direction.
Both keep looking straight ahead. No apparent movement.
I open the circle in front of mum and place a man four metres
opposite of her.
Very soon they both begin to smile, not long and on her own accord
mum steps towards the man, accelerating -almost despite my
encouragement to move very slowly- and flings herself into his open arms.
They hug for a long time. (For me the picture of two lovers,
particularly the way she keeps standing on her toes)
Did I see two lovers because I knew they were lovers?
Afterwards a first time observer told me unsolicited, she saw straight
away, the two are lovers.
2. Again, no talk and again I suggest to the seeker to start with his
parents only.
He places his father first looking out, his mother to the left of
him slightly behind looking towards father.
(from my hindsight perspective now, doubly the mirror image of the
other beginning)
Again no movement, both look straight ahead.
I open the circle in front of dad and place a man four metres
opposite of him.
After a while father begins to shiver; when asked, he says I want to
go to him but I can't, and it feels my right arm is
being ripped from me.
I tell him then, you are looking at your older brother whom you watched
getting accidentally electrocuted when he was 16.
Was I suggesting the rep's reaction with my intentional act of placing
the dead brother
or earlier the lover?
(Both seekers had no previous exposure to FC.: I am certain their
placing of their parents was unintentional)
Thanks Chris, what was phenomenological then?
Max
Other related posts: