Chris,
I agree with Dan about being formulaic and phenomenological. Switching two
representatives is just trying out an experiment, probably based on the
'orders', to see what effect it has. We can then check this out
phenomenologicaly by asking the reps how they feel.
As far as your comments on descriptions, descriptions always contain
judgements, squirming implies a judgement too, but it is also your
phenomenology. It neither one nor the other. I find its helpful for me not
to be too polarised in my thinking (being polarised is a bit of a pattern
for me!) but just accept that these ways of being: formulaic,
phenomenological, judgmental etc etc are happening all the time.
What's important for me is what I learnt from Hunter Beaumont about taking a
'phenomenological stance'. For me that means having a strong intent to
notice what is happening and hold my theories and judgements lightly, but I
can't get rid of them completely, nor would I want to.
I have learnt about phenomenology in constellations the 'hard way'. When
co-facilitating I found that if I was not leading the constellation, but
standing well outside of the field, I would often be full of theories about
what was happening and eager to present them to my co-facilitator. What
usually happened though was that my co-facilitator, who was closer to the
phenomenology, usually stuck to what she felt was more helpful, often quite
opposite to my view, and the constellation invariably flowed very well.
Cheers....David
on 5/6/05 9:01 AM, Chris Walsh at chrisjwalsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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? If instead I said I
noticed slight squirming in those 2 representatives, would that be
phenomenological? What about noticing my own reactions and internal
sensations in my body - Is that regarded as part of the phenomenological
method?
Hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
Website www.constellationflow.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Booth Cohen
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 10:33 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] phenomenology
We're always in the interplay between formulaic and phenomenological. The
scene you described is more formulaic. It becomes more phenomenological
when you swap them around and they feel worse. Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: On Behalf Of Chris Walsh
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links