Lutz wrote from the land down under:
__________________________________
Hi Thomas,
this is a response to your posting from 3.9.05!
You write in your posting about "Uncle Bert". I assume that you refer to
Bert Hellinger. I remember that in previous postings you used the wording
"Uncle Bert."
I have a strong reaction to that. I really don't like it!!!
No matter what your view is about Bert Hellinger - it does not make him
"Uncle Bert" unless you want to degrade him in one way or the other (I can't
imagine that this is your intent).
Lutz Pamberger, Western Australia
___________________________________
Lieber Lutz!
I acknowledge your dislike of my use of the title "Uncle Bert." Yet I have
also equally used the designation "Pope Bert," and you did not object to that
use.
So you feel that I am possibly degrading Bert by calling him "Uncle," yet
you seem not to be upset at my calling him Pope, which implies "Holy Father."
I'm grateful that you brought the issue up because I'm sure that there are
several others out there who feel the same way but who were not ready to say
so on the forum. You are correct in assuming that my intention is not to
degrade Bert. Quite the contrary. It is actually my breezy, carefree and
exuberant way of actually praising and honoring Bert.
For example, when I was in a group of students working together on physics
homework problems in college, we would refer to Albert Einstein as "Uncle
Albert." It was a way of simultaneously honoring Einstein as a modern physics
"god" and yet bringing him down to our student level, so that we might
understand the actual physics and not be intimidated by his elevated iconic
public
status.
Similarly, my use of "Uncle Bert" may connote to you a kind of cheeky
familiarity which is not earned, and since Bert is our esteemed "father
figure" in
this "family system" of facilitators, it may stir up feelings of sibling
resentment because I am violating your sense of honor and reverence toward
him.
Yet I believe I am both honoring him (as father) and pulling him down to my
level (as my equal). In short, I am TAKING Bert as he is, as my father in the
FC facilitator system, and by so taking him, I can actually move beyond him.
In Bert's book _Acknowledging What Is_, on page 93, there is this exchange
between Bert and Gabriele ten Hoevel concerning the issue of accepting vs.
taking,
an issue I wrote about last Sept. 8 in message 1567
_http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ConstellationTalk/message/1567_ ;
(http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ConstellationTalk/message/1567) :
I quote the whole exchange below:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<< BERT: . . . I differentiate very carefully between accepting and taking.
Accepting is gracious and tolerant. When I take, I take whatever is
available, exactly as it is. This kind of taking is humble and acknowledges
the
parents as they are.
In taking I also acknowledge myself exactly as I am. It has a deep
conciliatory quality --- a coming to rest. It's beyond judgment of good or bad.
Boasting about one's parents is also a sign of not having taken them.
Idealizing shuts out the essential as well.
GABRIELE: So taking is beyond admiration or idealization, as well as
condemnation?
BERT: Yes, it is totally elementary and without judgments. Those who can
take in this way are clear with their parents and with themselves and they can
fend for themselves.>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, Bert teaches us to find the "golden mean" between two opposite
extremes.
It is very easy to see that if a son despises his father, wishes he were
different, etc., then the son is really not TAKING his father as he is. But
it's a lot more difficult to see that if a son is idealizing his father, or
even
bragging about his father, then the son is equally guilty of not taking the
father as he is.
The point is that the son may not even be aware of the fact that he is
idealizing his father as a way of actually NOT taking his father as he is.
Perhaps
he is graciously tolerating his father, thus accepting him but not TAKING
him in Bert's sense of the word.
And so, Lutz, I wonder if you might be caught in this very subtle trap
yourself? I sense your ambiguity and confusion so I ask. On the one hand you
are
upset that I may be degrading Bert; on the other hand, you cannot imagine
that is my intent.
Might you not be so involved in your own reverence for Bert and his work
that you are inadvertently IDEALIZING him to the point of actually not TAKING
him as he is?
I am very familiar with this phenomenon because I have been a student of
Rudolf Steiner and his anthroposophy for the last 30 years. I have also been a
Waldorf teacher in NYC and LA for several years and I am painfully aware of
the way in which Waldorf teachers and other anthroposophists idealize Rudolf
Steiner beyond reason. Now that I am studying Bert Hellinger, I can see that
the Steiner followers are not taking Rudolf Steiner as he is.
If it is true, Lutz, that you are idealizing Bert, then you may suffer the
fate of never being able to go beyond what your "father" Bert has accomplished
himself. The wonderful paradox that Bert shows us is that both condemning
and idealizing our parents results in our becoming just like them to the
extent
that we are never able to transcend our parents because of our own
self-imposed limitations to our growth.
Rudolf Steiner once thundered to a group of hapless anthroposophists in his
inner circle: "I don't want to be revered; I want to be understood." think
Bert feels the same way about his followers, groupies, devotees, etc.
Transference, anyone?
Thomas
our parents results
