Gestaltherapy Theory Keeps Poor. But not its Philosophical Foundations, History, Actitudes and Culture.

• Mission Statement by Brian O'Neill, 10/31/96
  • (...)
    
    • Say What!? by Philip Brownell, 3/1/97
      
      

May I think differently?...I think that in replying the ideas of my article Brownell indeed replyed to something else, and never those ideas!!! Worst: he distorted heavily my ideas! Please, avoid doing that! I meant, in my former words, that consensual Gestatherapy Theory is poor. And I think that not only poor but also confused, missing... This certainly might be seen as natural, as Gestaltherapy is a non theoretical approach, but fenomenactive one, *in its practice*. More than this, it is part of the intensely changing and tense field of the social relationships called psychotherapy, and in this field theory has often very hard times. The fact that Fritz Perls made a descontruction of certain models of psychotherapy as na important part of his work in order to build and point to the bases of a specifically phenomenological existential dialogic paradigm of psychotherapy seems to be an important factor in this situation of the Gestaltherapy Theory. As if he had left a zero point of theory... Anyway, a non theorethical approach of psychotherapy should first be broadly practicised by its comunity – and we have very conflicting comunities, in the healthy sense of the word -- till a fluent theorization could unfold. So it is natural that minimally consensual theory in Gestaltherapy is poor. This comes from specific caracteristics and conditions of Gestaltherapy. What I meant and mean also is that it isn’t the same thing with the philosophical phenomenological, existential dialogic foundations of GT, nor with the actitudes that come from these foundations and values, nor with the vigorous history of Gestaltherapy. They are quite consistent and clear, although that sometimes they are troublesome to assume... We have the challenge to improve our theories. Recover the original sources seems one of the good ways. Saying this *I don’t minimize the worth of some of the contemporary theoretical productions of gestaltherapists*. Many of them very intresting and inspiring. I am quite aware that we live in another time. And I don’t know why Brownell understood something else! But I don’t share the aim to minimize the works and the time of people of the time of Fritz, Buber and so on. This seems usual among some getaltherapists today, but it seems very silly to me. They are classics exactly because they were important in the past, they are important in the present and they will be in the future. And this does not attempts against present time, against rich novelty, or against present stars, or presumed ones. Whoever creates itself as classic nowdays will be effectively important also presently and in the future. Brownell argument smell heavily to the stereotype reaction of empiricist psychologists of the fifities when they heard speak about phenomenology and existentialism. I hope we are in another time. For me to value multiplicity is a precious principle, I can’t figure out why Brownell understood that I want to minimize portions of Gestaltherapy... But I agree with the idea that it is intresting that from the multiplicity some strong figure might emerge to mobilize intresting and vital action. The paralysis of a mutplicity in which there is the equivalece of the elements, in which, for this, a strong figure can’t emerge seems to me today so unintresting as it seemed to be in Fritz era. This is what smells to me the idea of the time of BOTH/AND and of na internal Gestaltherapy eccletism. Anyway, VIVA the multiplicity!!! This is what I said! Note: if we all put each our messages three times, it will become hard to sail in this forum!

• Say What-Ever. by Philip Brownell, 3/2/97