-
-
Replying to @LapsusLima
@KevinSimler Yes. Focusing is interesting. It's not like@vgr said, an old idea rediscovered. Though, it may be that at one level. In itself, it is something that some people already do. And it's not old hat if I pay attention to precisely what it is. I can explain a little.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
I have recently revisited it, and I am finding it helpful to revisit. I think I was already "doing it" before I explicitly worked with it. In fact, Gendlin, by study, discovered it as something some people already do. His contribution was in making it explicit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
The most interesting books on it for me on a revisit, are "Focusing-oriented psychotherapy: a manual of the experiential method", and A Process Model. The first is a rich run through of the method, the second a theoretical work that expands on Gendlin's thinking.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
And what Gendlin makes explicit in "the method" simply the productive use of an implicit bodily felt sense. And focusing he says, is merely "spending time with something bodily sensed but unclear until [it shifts or] comes 'into focus'." I can explain a little further.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
What I am interested in on a revisit is what I wrote as "the use of a direct bodily felt sense of an unclear edge to a feeling, emotion, or experience." That living frontier interests me. And it also interests me that some people, for different reasons don't have access to that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
Gendlin emphasizes what he calls the murky edge of a felt sense. The murkiness is important because many people are not really checking in on their feeling. Some people think they know what they are feeling when they are not yet paying attention to the intricacy of feeling.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
Bodily felt sense is itself a rich frontier. It is not an idea only, but a reality to be explored. And as Gendlin mentions, it exist at the edge of the preconcious, at the tip of the tongue. It is precise in one sense, as a felt sense, and rich in potential verbal reference.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
In the foreword to Process Model, they mention William James for insight into bodily sense and Merleau-Ponty for his notion of “the knowing body” (le corps connaissant).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @faustroll @LapsusLima and
"What James showed in 1890 is the still largely unknown fact that we can feel something with our bodies that is very precise even though it doesn’t have a single pattern." Ibid, xiii
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
My point was that *Gendlin* is old at this point, not that his work is derivative (though that may be). The Focusing book is from 1978 and I read it in the 90s. There seems to be no recent (as in 2018-) developments to explain sudden new interest unless I missed something.
-
-
Aha. Yes. An interesting and very precise point. That reality of no new developments (if true) may be an artifact of the implicit nature of "le corps connaissant". It is part of an implicit reality for those who make use of it, and it is unavailabe to those who cannot or do not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faustroll @vgr and
The derivative nature of it is a good thing as Gendlin himself points out. It would be off if it were original. The making explicit of something implicit is where it gets interesting. In fact, the toggling of the conscious and the preconscious, the implicit and explicit is key.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
