I think Americans are having a very difficult time with
the word "phenomenological"; I know I did when I first
heard it. Think of it as pheomenon and logical -- what's
happening, and what's the reasonable thing to do about it.
A constellator would notice the discomfort of reps and ask
them what's going on. Whatever you call it, the reps'
discomfort is what is happening, and we deal with what is
by inquiring about it.
Diane Yankelevitz
www.WisdomHealing.com
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:21:04 +1000
Max Dauskardt <max@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Chris, Dan, David et al,
Chris Walsh wrote:
Thanks Dan that makes sense.The showing of discomfort is the phenomenological bit -assuming that any other unbiased observer would as well
Would you or others call noticing the discomfort of the 2 representatives
phenomenological or is that too much of a judgement?
perceive discomfort.
If instead I said IThe noticing is still only a door opener bringing us in touch with the phenomenon
noticed slight squirming in those 2 representatives, would that be
phenomenological?
the beginning of the tight rope act we are walking during each constellation.
What about noticing my own reactions and internalDavid put it nicely, that is our personal phenomenology; which entails the potential of our being lead astray,
sensations in my body - Is that regarded as part of the phenomenological
method?
the more we watch ourselves the further we may move away from what is happening in front of us.
Hasta la vistaIn this context let me bring two moments of a recent workshop to the forum:
Chris Walsh
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
