Thanks Otteline, Barbara & Max fro your thoughts on phenomenology. I would
like to understand it a bit better. Lets take a common constellation scene
and look at it closely.
Imagine we are facilitating a constellation. We notice 2 representatives who
are standing side by side look quite uncomfortable. We then realise that
according to the orders they are on the wrong side of each other. So we swap
them around. They both sigh and visibly relax so we feel happy with the
intervention.
My current question about this is: What part of this - if any, is
phenomenological?
Hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
Website www.constellationflow.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barbara Morgan
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 4:44 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] phenomenology
Thanks Ottleline. Fascinating. I remember at the beginning of my Gestalt
training being asked to define what I thought phenomenology was. Most of us
thought we knew but when we came to describing it, found we didn't really.
Many years later I think I now grasp the essence of it and it seems to me
to be the starting point for so many things - both spiritual and
psychological. I guess I would say "being present", being in the moment,
staying with not knowing until something emerges sums it up for me - and if
it sounds so simple, why is it so difficult to put into practice? It is this
process which I see at the core of the Hellinger work and which Bert, in all
his initial resistance to having things written down, holds dear.
Unfortunately, it leads and has led to many misunderstandings as others
(including myself!) try to interpret and fix what has been said in a moment
of time. Now of course there is loads written down and recorded in various
forms and Bert himself is setting up a training programme.So I wonder what
will happen to it all. Will the essence disappear under a pile of
theoretical concepts or is it possible to still stay present with those
concepts in the back of our minds rather than the front? It seems that the
move away starts with fear, fear that someone else will grab hold of an idea
and make it theirs before we do, will become more powerful than us, take
possession and of course that happens, often. So, is this the root of moving
away from presence? Territorial, survival instincts? I remember some time
ago going to a talk by a woman who had spent some time with the Hopi
Indians. They had no concept of possession, didn't understand it at all and
they had no past or future tense in their language.... Barbara Morgan
-----Original Message-----
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Otteline van
Zuilekom-Lamet
Sent: 29 May 2005 10:51
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] phenomenology
Hello Chris,
What an interesting subject to bring forward! To my "intellectual"
knowledge, phenomenology is always connected to the direct experience. In
fact I think it is the knowledge which goes with the direct experience. So I
fully agree with you that the moment you start talking about what you have
experienced, it leaves the area of direct experienced knowledge and becomes
"normal" knowledge, a theory. Very usefull in itself but something else. And
once something becomes a theory one can go every direction with it.
I recognise this often in constellations when I see what is going on and
my theory or thinking about it or perception of it, is not enough to bring
forward the mutual shared experience in the moment: Ah, this is what it is
all about! Or I have no clue what the hell is going on (often during
constellations where you set up qualities or subjects in stead of
familymembers) and all of a sudden at the end - if we are all able to endure
the process of not knowing - every knows what is was all about.
Hameed Almaas, my spiritual teacher, calls this phenomenological knowledge
"basic knowledge" and the moment you start talking about it, it becomes
"ordinary knowledge". He writes about this in one of his books "Spacecruiser
Inquiry", true guidance for the inner journey". He also writes there about
the process of inquiry (which is what we do in this work) and the inner
guidance. I find it very helpfull. If you are interested you can find it on
http://ahalmaas.com
Well, I hope you are doing fine and also that this is a contribution to
the group.
Love,
Otteline
Op 29-mei-05 om 3:51 heeft Chris Walsh het volgende geschreven:
Hi all,
I just copied and pasted all the contributions on inflation
going back to Bertold Ulsamer's posting about reconciliation which
stimulated me to raise the subject. It came to 19 pages on a word document.
Lots of really nourishing food for thought! Thank you everyone. Because I
think it is a very important topic I will continue to plug away at it.
A side issue that arose for me during the discussion was that of
phenomenology. Bert Hellinger says his work is phenomenological. It struck
me that he never defines it. He just assumes people know what he means by
such expressions as "a phenomenological insight" or "Acknowledging what is".
I do know that phenomenology has its roots in the philosophical works of
Hegel, Husserl & Heidegger. Having read a little, I discovered that
"Acknowledging what is" isn't so easy, because we all have conceptual
filters. So even the orders of love which were discovered through a
phenomenological approach are such filters that then remove us from directly
experiencing. In fact as soon as we name something we move from perception
to conception.
So even talking about phenomenology is paradoxical in itself.
Nonetheless, I thing it would be very helpful if we could get clearer about
this "phenomenology thing" that is supposed to be the basis of our
constellation practice.
Hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
Website www.constellationflow.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Booth Cohen
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:42 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk]Placement in a constellation
There
