Abstractions?

• Past Life Regression by Maryann K. Schumm, 5/16/98
  • (...)
    
    • Why bother? by Stephen Lankton, 5/20/98
      
      

S. Lankton writes:
You asked if I "Would you be willing to use a metaphor with a fundamentalist Christian client that involved the concept of "heaven"? Or, with an atheistic client, would you use a metaphor that was based on the end of consciousness at death?" The answer is "no." Why would I need to even bother to do that? I am trying to help people organize resources and experiences for change not tell stories about abstract topics.

You are missing a point here, Stephen. Your clients believe in such "abstract" topics... unless you screen clients and limit them to simply "scientific" or "academic" folks... and even then, you'll likely have to utilize the abstractions related to those beliefs.

For instance, do you Erickson's "Whistleberries" story (Sid Rosen includes it in "My Voice...")? Check out Erickson's masterful utilization of the idea of "God"... which had meaning for a client that he explains "was a converted Catholic. Now converted Catholics are always so ardent..." In this case Erickson begins with the "abstract topic" of God, which had particular meaning for the client, and then leads it into an anatomical discussion, ending with a suggestion to "...enjoy God's work."

Erickson's metaphoric utilization of client's belief systems can be identified throughout his work, as you well know, along with any number of totally abstract and even utterly fictional metaphors. Ghost dogs, anthropomorphic tomatoes, imaginary television shows, etc.

Metaphors that I use tend to deal with verifyable experience and most certainly with "thing" about the response to which, I will have sense.

A client's belief is not a "verifyable experience"? Can you give an example of the kind of "thing" you are dealing with or limiting yourself to?

Phil
Click Here for Extreme Belief Systems

• Relax guys by Your Both Wrong, 6/7/98