I found this video by Elliott Connie useful! Elliott is a Solution Focussed Couple therapist.
Bud, a psychodrama colleague recommended the video, on Shane Birkel’s Facebook page.
Here a a bit of Bud’s summary:
… the vital importance of the difference between a goal for therapy and a desired outcome. He discuses it in the context of working with a couple who appeared to have mutually opposing or exclusive goals.
What a simple idea, and perhaps something we already know in an illusive way. Elliott’s teaching and examples in the video are just excellent.
$1,000,000 = Goal
Peace of mind = Outcome
Gets me thinking… he is showing us an example of assisting people to deeper into their being and sharing more. I like the SF questions.
I wonder if couples themselves using the universal space opening question: “Is there more?” would go from the goal to the outcome?
That way couple can do their own deep listening, with one question: Is there more?
This can be done – partner to partner. If they succeed they may get more confidence and hope for their relationship.
If they don’t… it is good for the therapist to have SFT at the ready.
Do watch & listen to the video!
This book is on my list because I’m exploring the relational paradigm. Archetypes of Relational Space? What comes up is that marriage is a medium. This might be relevant?
The Soft Edge
I can get the paper version here for 1c But I want a digital one… And that is here on Google
There is a lovely video of Paul Levinson on Amazon
While on the journey I downloaded a sample of another book, this one looks like fun. The Plot to Save Socrates
(Thanks Brian for pointers)
I’m gripped at about 20% into the book.
This Item puts me off a bit, though it also provides extra food for thought.
So far I think the author presents the world a world animated with the spirit of life in a sympathetic way and the Catholic view to the contrary is almost mocked, thus so far so good.
Enjoyed the CBC video about writing the novel, here:
Later – upon finishing the book — Thursday, 18 December 2014
It was horrendously violent – and it is hard to believe that such cruelty is possible. However I don’t agree with the article linked to above that is biased towards the priests or the against the Iroquois.
I finished it a few days ago and the book is still with me, it had an impact, not just the violence, but the characters, and particularly the sense of the soul of things and people – the orenda – that gives the book its title.
I find Hillman a joy to listen to. This video leads to many others.
This is an amazing site. A treasure. Video Episode after episode of long outpourings by interesting people. Most of them quite old!
İSTANBUL PSİKODRAMA ENSTİTÜSÜ – an interview with Zerka Moreno 2000
(it is on that link but takes a bit of perseverance to find it.)
I was intrigued by the ideas about couple therapy. Pre marital clarifications of expectations.
Zerka Interview mp3
This video is worth watching.
I’m particularly interested in how she names the couple dynamics, the dance that people have. I like the way that couples devise their own name for them.
In this way couples can create dialogues they think will particularly address the dance.
Here is her book on Amazon
Passion – full aliveness – relaxed
Beyond conflict – tension but not oppositional.
The quality of the presence is what counts – not the words or the behaviour.
55 minutes worth watching
Wallace Shawn (My diner with Andre) at occupy Wall Street
This is an excellent talk on the nature of the relationship: This is th imago philosophy well presented.
11 November 2012 International Crossing the Bridge Day
There is meant to be a way to put this on my blog, not (only) on the Storify site. But it does not seem to work.
Never the less, this is a slice of the Moranien psychodrama mentions on the net on July 9 2011. Some good stuff there. (I thought I’d posted this before? – perhaps it was one of the ones that got lost in the db crash?)
Continue reading “Psychodrama on Storify”
This is inspiring. It takes two to mess up a relationship, but only one to fix it.
Further to the last post, look at this video (thanks Josh)
Steven Rose by blindwatcher
It seems to me they all agree on the question where does “good” come from. Steven Rose is systemic in his thinking, Dawkins more reductionist.
Background to this discussion:
Steven Rose – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Research and scientific controversies With Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin, Rose championed the “radical science movement.”[page needed] The three criticized sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and adaptationism, most prominently in the book Not in Our Genes (1984), laying out their opposition to Sociobiology (E. O. Wilson, 1975), The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins, 1976), and other works promoting an evolutionary explanation for human social behaviour. Not in Our Genes described Dawkins as “the most reductionist of sociobiologists”. In retort, Dawkins wrote that the book practices reductionism by distorting arguments in terms of genetics to “an idiotic travesty (that the properties of a complex whole are simply the sum of those same properties in the parts)”, and accused the authors of giving “ideology priority over truth”. Rose replied in the 2nd edition of his book Lifelines. Rose wrote further works in this area; in 2000 he jointly edited with the sociologist Hilary Rose, a critique of evolutionary psychology: Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. In 2006 he wrote a paper dismissing classical heritability estimates as useful scientific measures in respect of human populations especially in the context of IQ. Rose was for several years a regular panellist on BBC Radio 4’s ethics debating series The Moral Maze. Rose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.
Products become services…
That is a profound thing to say in 1966
See Marshall McLuhan videos here
I just watched the movie Zeitgeist: Addenda Here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#
I got to it because I saw in Google news that the movie is showing in Christchurch tonight. What I like about the movie is that it shows the end is night. It shows the nature of the problem, essentially the crumbling of the US empire.
It does it quite well! It shows the power of the IMF and World bank, the corporations, and shows really well how the US conducts its empire. It is holistic in many ways, drawing on people from a lot of fields for their opinion.
Critique and and a link follow, and a pdf:
Continue reading “Zeitgeist”
Two images made on the iphone using ToonPaint. But not only the ap of course. Various levels of sampeling going on here. They are are from photos I took from the TV screen, while I was watching a video about Alice Neel, Very impressive!