Okay, Afonso. Whatever you say. I think I misunderstand you, and for that I apologize. It seemed to me that you were minimalizing Gestalt Therapy, and now you say that you welcome multiplicity and that Gestalt therapists have made valuable contributions. I confess that I am puzzled, because you include in the title of your recent post the message that Gestalt therapy is still poor.
I guess the part that I really don't agree with is when you assert that Gestalt therapy has no basis in theory. I don't understand how you can say that. I know of many people who have explained its theoretical base quite nicely, and I mentioned them in my last post. I see an overlap between the theory of Perls, Hefferlein, and Goodman (and the futher development of that theory in people like Gordon Wheeler, Robert Resnick, and Erv and Miriam Polster), and the theoretical constructs presently shared through the Society for Gestalt Theory and its Applications (as shared on this forum and in other places by Gerhard Stemberger and Thomas Fuchs). I believe the dialogue between these two positions in the field will enrich us all tremendously. There is a STRONG theoretical base. In the new hard copy journal, "Gestalt Review," for instance, Malcolm Parlett writes on "The Unified Field in Practice," Petruska Clarkson presents an article, "Variations on I and Thou," and Judith Brown offers her perspective on "Researcher as Instrument: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Gestalt and Qualitative Methodology." Joe Wysong has put up an article at the site for the Gestalt Journal on the relationship between Gestalt Psychology and Gestalt Therapy (which is listed in the array of posts here at the forum). Gary Yontef's summary of Gestalt Therapy theory is available in many forms, including online here at BOL and at the Gestalt Journal online site. In the face of these kinds of examples, can you please support your contention that Gestalt Therapy has no theory and is poor?
Regarding having posted the last message three times, I apologize for that too; it was unintentional, unintentional, unintentional. :-)