I have been having a conversation with an individual that has brought me to this place…
I believe that much of what we are communicating to each other could fall in the category of, “I would agree, but I don’t know that I would choose to use those words…”
Having said that I do believe that there are some differences in what we are stating to each other, exceeding a divergence at the simple, semantic level. I believe those differences are, and are derived from, differences at a level that encompass an entire perspective; gestalt. I have found myself at the point in the conversation where I believe it necessary to define the terms we are using to say what we say, which leads to more definitions, ad nauseum…
If these differences truly result from the simple fact that my friend and I are the proverbial blind men examining different parts of the elephant (as opposed to a legitimate incoherence that could be solved by a discussion of the facts at hand), then how are we to come to a meeting of the minds?
2 comments:
The Gestalt therapist works by engaging in dialogue rather than by manipulating the patient toward some therapeutic goal. Such contact is marked by straightforward caring, warmth, acceptance and self-responsibility. When therapists move patients toward some goal, the patients cannot be in charge of their own growth and self-support. Dialogue is based on experiencing the other person as he or she really is and showing the true self, sharing phenomenological awareness. The Gestalt therapist says what he or she means and encourages the patient to do the same. Gestalt dialogue embodies authenticity and responsibility.
It would seem like there must be some more effective way. Dialogue from two different worldviews ends up being a lot like the lack of communication that takes place betwen two different languages, with the added confusion of sounding like the same language.
Post a Comment