Observation v. Participation

Thanks for your post. One comment, I can make without a more defined question is based on your new interest and your likelihood to practice or learn by traditional scientific method. Traditionally, in science, we have followed the path from Aristotle (et. al.) -> Bacon -> Descartes -> Newton and eventually to Freud. Our understanding is based on an incorrect assumption that we get the Truth from observing Reality 'out there' (and did not influence it). But when one acquires skill as various ‘Ericksonian techniques’ it has little to do with make one a good therapist or an ‘Ericksonian’.

As you mentioned in your posting there are looks of data coming in and as therapists we filter out much of it. So, here is a clue about what is different in Erickson's (BTW, it is spelled with a 'ck') approach. He was one of the few and finest change agents to display an ability to operate within a new paradigm. This paradigm is all about participation. I have written about it in a chapter in HANDBOOK OF CONSTRUCTIVE THERAPY (Hoyt (ed.), Jossey-Bass Publisher, 1998) if you are interested. But, bottom line, I think this one ‘angle’ so to speak is the most salient feature and the most subtle difference in Erickson’s work. The conventional way is easier to be sure but it has many draw backs (including what is implied in the Star Wars line: ‘The dark side is quicker, more seductive, Luke.’ So, while this is hard work to make it a part of yourself and work it is worth it.). I don’t know if such a brief mentioning of the epistemology is enough increase your awareness for these ongoing transactional influences as you hunt for more ideas and information, but I hope so.

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.