[From Dick Robertson,2009.09.12.1855CDT]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.11.1501 MDT)]
Tracy B. Harms (2008-09-11 11:07 Pacific) –
Yesterday I happened to be introduced to the philosophical and
psychological work of E. T. Gendlin. I am rather shocked that
I’ve not noticed him before now. I suspect that others here are at least
somewhat familiar with his ideas. In fact, given my various absences
from this list I may have missed specific discussions of it.
An example of what I’m reading is this: (etc. See below)
Oddly, I wrote to him last Spring, not about his work but to see
if he had any records from the Counselling Center at the U of
Chicago (Carl Rogers’ outfit). Mary was an intern there and knew Gene
(Eugene) Gendlin.
PCT also recognizes direct physical interactions with the
environment. However, I would not agree that we (as observers)
can know the environment, or Reality, by direct contact that
bypasses the senses. We can know the sensed consequences of those direct
interactions, but of course the idea of an “organism” in an
“environment” is also a product of our brains.
Perception, as I use the term, is a form of information, not of
significant energy transfer. It’s as near as we can get to
observing things without the observation noticeably affecting what is
observed (a butterfly or a gnat would probably be unable to sense whether
someone was looking at it or ten inches to the left of it). What
we know consciously about reality is derived from whatever
information our senses provide. I don’t accept the idea that there is any
other way.
I think Gendlin may have been one of the Rogerians who really
thought they could feel the client’s emotions, literally. But I’m not
sure he was. Dick Robertson, being another student at the Center at that
time, would know. (Bill)
(RR now)Some Rogerians and a lot of psychoanalytically trained people I know place a lot of emphasis on the idea that empathy really consists of feeling what the other is feeling and that it involves kind of a global sensing. I think I sort of agree, but can clarify further with the comments I paste below.
[Tracy B. Harms (2008-09-11 11:07 Pacific) –
(RR repeating a bit, )
Yesterday I happened to be introduced to the philosophical and
psychological work of E. T. Gendlin. I am rather shocked that I’ve not
noticed him before now. I suspect that others here are at least
somewhat familiar with his ideas. In fact, given my various absences
from this list I may have missed specific discussions of it.
An example of what I’m reading is this: The primacy of the body, not the primacy of perception: How the body knows the situation and philosophy
http://www.focusing.org/gendlin/docs/gol_2162.html
Our own living bodies also are interactions with their environments, and >that is not lost just because ours also have perception.
That noted, my overall impression is that there is a broad,
interesting compatibility between what Gendlin writes and PCT. I’d be
interested in hearing the opinions of others on this topic.
(WTP)PCT also recognizes direct physical interactions with the
environment. However, I would not agree that we (as observers) can
know the environment, or Reality, by direct contact that bypasses the
senses. We can know the sensed consequences of those direct
interactions, but of course the idea of an “organism” in an
“environment” is also a product of our brains.
Perception, as I use the term, is a form of information, not of
significant energy transfer. It’s as near as we can get to observing
things without the observation noticeably affecting what is observed
(a butterfly or a gnat would probably be unable to sense whether
someone was looking at it or ten inches to the left of it). What we
know consciously about reality is derived from whatever information
our senses provide. I don’t accept the idea that there is any other way.
I think Gendlin may have been one of the Rogerians who really thought
they could feel the client’s emotions, literally. But I’m not sure he
was. Dick Robertson, being another student at the Center at that
time, would know.
Best, Bill P.
Here’s what I know (RR speaking)
Gene was the major one of the five therapists I’ve had in my life. Later, after I returned to the Center for my internship Gene was the most important one to support my bid for second-year internship. (Successful BTW). So we did eventually have both that formal relationship and subsequent informal ones.
I have seen him over the years at various conferences, and on one occasion when I told him I was training in bioenergetic therapy I believe he said that its emphasis on the body was consistent with his own view about it—or something to that effect.
During those years I also worked for Gene as a research assistant on analyzing some of the data which I believe helped his thinking for his book, Focusing. I have a vague recollection that either the findings on this phase of his research were equivocal, or that he was disappointed in how I had handled it, although I believed it conformed to what he thought he had found. But he did a lot of other research, such as listening to hundreds of hours of recorded sessions—that he mentions in the beginning of his book.
Getting back to my own therapy, I believe I know what he talks about as a “felt sense” that occurs from time to time in therapy. I don’t know if I ever immediately felt the internal shifting he describes in the book, but I clearly remember feelings of “Gee, I feel happy, I wonder what happened. Oh, wait a minute. Something’s different, something’s different in me.”
BTW Does that sound familiar to any PCTer?
(Tracy now)
One passage here that stands out in sharp contrast with PCT is what
Gendlin wrote in regard to plants:
To begin philosophy by considering perception makes it seem
that living things can contact reality only through perception.
But plants are in contact with reality. They are interactions,
quite without perception.
(RR) See, I either don’t agree with this, or I give Gene’s words a different slant than people ordinarily might. Take his own words (From Focusing Ch. 3:
“First…there is a kind of bodily awareness that profoundly influences our lives and that can be used as a tool to help us reach personal goals…there are no ready-made words to describe it…[so I have called it] felt sense…when your felt sense of a situation changes, you change.”
(RR talking) Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Gene continues. “A felt sense is not a mental experience but a physical one.”
(RR again) Where does it come from ? I think Gene answered it as follows:
“Think of two people who play a major role in your life…the inner aura as you think of each person isn’t made up of discrete bits of data that you consciously add together in your mind…There are undoubtedly millions of such bits of data that describe Helen as you know her, but these millions of bits aren’t delivered to you one by one, thoughts, Instead they are given to you as felt….
This sounds like a no-brainer for a PCT-er. Gene hasn’t said here (he might have elsewhere I haven’t reviewed his whole book now), but it seems obvious that those “bits of data,” we would call perceptions—sights, sounds, smells assemblies of around six orders of data as processed by several higher orders. That they are felt bodily I can gronk that. Those tons of separate perceptions get mixed with my own reactive sensations and stored, I presume, in memory in ninth and tenth order systems from where I would respond totally, if my Self system ordered some action with that library of data. (I’m not trying to be technically precise here. I think you can get what I mean.) And yes, the stronger the response, the more more strongly I think I would be feeling.
He was interested in facilitating what he had found that characterized the difference between people who got better in working with him, and those who did not seem to. He wasn’t digging into how all behavior works, and didn’t think in terms of hierarchical structure of behavior. But I for one think that there is definitely a “felt sense” when reorganization is going on, or at least as one reflects back on what has just happened.
Best,
Dick R
.