Remove this ad

Lead

Sep 11 10 5:22 PM

Tags : :

Attached is a personal report on the conference, maybe requiring a little editing before I maybe send it to PCQ.

I guess there's a lot here, but I found it a wonderful two days that linked in with my current research on self-trust, love and sexual attraction.

Cheers
Mark
--------------------

Click here to view the attachment
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#2 [url]

Sep 11 10 7:34 PM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

Really good stuff, Mark - thanks for sharing the pre-publication version (not that I think it needs much, if any, additional work). This takes the conference report 'genre' to a whole new level - certainly so far as PCQ is concerned anyway. I've read whole books with fewer references!

In terms of the shoulders you were rubbing up against at the Conference I don't see that as name dropping but more you starting to find your own level. I don't think you have caught up with yourself yet on that score. As you know, I felt the response you wrote to Lisbeth Sommerbeck's PCEP paper/listserv posting was well worth considering for publication in the PCEP Journal as a 'proper' response and your writing is getting better all the time. Or judging by how long you've been sitting on some of this stuff (like the other paper you shared recently), maybe you are just feeling more confident about putting it out there?

You give a sense of relational depth finding *its* own level' too, perhaps, within the PCA community. Or maybe that was just you readjusting how and where it sits in your own theoretical take on things? I find it hard to imagine Mick Cooper playing it down in terms of its significance - or if he did, I think i'd take that as false modesty. Am I being harsh? You'll maybe recall that I'm somewhat in the sceptical / emperor's new clothes camp myself where RD is concerned (this may just be gobbledegook to other readers - sorry, I'm just freestyling here while i'm well enough to sit upright).

I found myself not just envious of your writerly facility, but also of your ablebodiedness and the fact that you *can* go to events like this and fully participate - whereas I'm struggling to adapt to constraints in my life that make getting across the road to the office an achievement these days. I know you have a research interest in sexual attraction which probably heightens any innate tendency to reflect on those aspects of awareness, but your account has captured what for me was one of the real draws to intensive - and especially residential and/or encounter-oriented - events in my former CPD-junkie life. They were always, for me, better than orgies - because they stimulate on so many different levels. I welcome your openness to writing as a whole person, and not just out of your planet-sized brain.

If anyone is reading this before reading the actual report I hope it will add that little bit of relish and impetus to grab the paper and check it out - well worth the effort.

Paul x

Paul | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Sep 11 10 10:02 PM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

personcentred wrote:

How's the head today!?
Ray


Oh no! Did I post something here as well whilst upto my eyeballs in alcohol?!?! Luckily, I only gently lost the morning...

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Sep 11 10 10:21 PM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

Thanks Paul, I guess I maybe overdid it as a conference report, but hey!

When you say of finding my level, I'm uncomfy. I guess I have a fair strength in writing ability, just like everyone has their own strengths - and I feel your own come through in these forums with the sheer clarity you offer. I think my time on the BAPCA CG showed me that being shy about talking to people was self-defeating, and that everyone's perspective has validity - including my own.

I think I maybe understated how significant I feel RD is, and will check that I don't downplay how significant it is for others. I did mention Barrett-Lennard's empathy cycle, and how Rogers condition 6 sees the client offering mirror empathy to any expression by the therapist - so dialogue and encounter is a given really - RD, to me, acknowledges the presence of the counsellor through the development of research tools that MIck Cooper and others have worked hard on. You say about 'emperor's new clothes', for me its more like new glasses - a new perspective on being able to acknowledge (and promote) the occurrance of 'good person-centred therapy', as Pete Sanders somewhat put it (with maybe some skepticism of his own).

I'm wondering what events you might be getting yourself to, recognising how getting to the office is maybe too often too much. I'd love to get together sometime.

Thanks for all the kind words
Mark

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Sep 12 10 9:26 AM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

I think that, even after all that has been said and written (and even with the development of new tools, language, perspectives), I'm saying that I still fall firmly in the 'yes but what does it add?' camp. You still only have the conditions through which to achieve RD - no? I deeply mistrust the whole thing, to be honest. I could be wrong, but feel it is driven by people desperately trying to make a name for themselves - not something you can achieve without adding something 'new'. Maybe it does put some flesh on the 'presence' bones that Rogers came more to quite late on. But even so, it seems to me that he achieved a whole lot of RD with 'just' the conditions - Gloria felt him the father she never had, for example.

It may not be at all apparent, but I am trying to remain agnostic on this one.

As for what events or conferences I'm getting to, none is the answer. And I don't foresee a situation where that will change. Maybe webcasting will save me if i live long enough to see it more widely used.

Paul | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Sep 12 10 10:25 AM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

I really enjoyed reading your report Mark, thank you. My own take on RD is that it fits in well with Peter Schmid's 'dialogical' perspective - and also with the other research in recent times that seems to place a greater emphasis on the relational aspect of PCT. I find it very difficult to put into words, though. It almost seems to me as if it casts classical CCT as 'doing' compared with RD's 'being' - with RD as a kind of supercharged version with the whole of the therapist right in there in the mix set against an almost ethereal, perhaps not fully-invested therapist in the 'old school' approach. Am I even making any sense at all here? Oddly enough, what Paul says about mistrusting the professional/academic drivers behind RD makes me wonder if what I'm sensing is two strands of therapy, one predominantly ego-less and one more ego-enriched (where ego almost certainly isn't the word i'm looking for). I want to delete the whole of what i've written now and run away and hide, but then i would have wasted the last half hour!

Kereru x

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#7 [url]

Sep 12 10 10:01 PM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

Hi Mark and all
Wow - that was a very impressive conference report, Mark! Such thought and effort makes me really feel it was worth while us putting on the event. Thanks to you for coming and contrinuting so much in the group dicsussions. I'll look forward to seeing the PCQ version in the next edition.
I think you raise some of the really important issues that came up on the day and also that were present leading into it too. 'Is this anything new?' being the most pertinent perhaps and I really liked your summary of views in the report. I disagree with the view that there is nothing new in the world and see this as best exampled in considering creativity and art for example - a new painting for instance is a 'new' expression of something or an experience and is also able to facilitate people to look upon things differently. I think the new glasses idea fits well with that so agree with you Mark that there is a new perspective being taken that may not be something entirely new but is certainly receiving an orignal articulation through the research being carried out - I hear others saying that people may be doing that for personal gain and agree, in part, as an academic I have to say that I personally gain from carrying out research. However, I would respond, from a totally non-defensive place, that I do it because I love it and have a passion for it and genuinely believe it makes a contribution to furthing knowledge but that is, admittedly, usually in very small ways.
This forum is great btw - thanks to PC for setting it up!
Warmest regards
David

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Sep 12 10 10:23 PM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

I've enjoyed reading everyone's contributions here - and Mark's report in particular. I didn't get indigestion through reading it whilst eating my tea yesterday, you'll be pleased to note. I still feel myself much closer to Sue Wilders' PCQ statement (February 2007) than fully accepting of the other more embracing perspectives on RD, however. I can't really add much to that in terms of my personal opinions or understanding so perhaps if I attach that article here others might read it and see where they stand on her counter-argument. I don't think it's been bettered and think it's a great shame that she isn't on the conference circuit articulating these views.

Ray


--------------------

Click here to view the attachment

Ray | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Sep 13 10 5:17 AM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

Hi all,

I'm getting in a tangle over how to address responses here! I'm also increasingly aware of the level of responding/posting I am doing (another day, another rant) - something of Kereru's thing about 'ego' maybe.

Ray: Hope the indigestions gone . I got a lot from Sue's report first time out, thanks for posting here. I feel she offers a strong reminder that, as Paul says "You still only have the conditions through which to achieve RD - no?" For me, RD is the new glasses, not something to strive for or 'apply' in any way. As I said, I feel it adds focus to the idea of the therapists presence, which I feel sits under-represented in the conditions (see next para, on 'brakes'). For me, there is something about Buberian Otherness, but I think its worth a separate thread.

David: Thanks, and thanks again for the conference. The link to art is a biggie for me. Paul sneakily posted an unpublished paper I put together - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=65 which argues that: 1. there is a wholeness/oneness to the universe (from a maths/physics/AI perspective); 2. congruence is maybe a sensing of this oneness, or alignment with it, based on Iris Murdoch's concept of beauty. In other words, and maybe as an evolutionary necessity, it feels good to be congruent. (maybe another thread here - I see it as an ethical sense, or sense of joy, getting towards ideas of enlightenment). However, in an unpublished presentation, I lightheartedly proposed that given this, then evolution would maybe see the sex-drive based on this - otherwise we would not be the 'fittest', hence sex has the same 'feel good' factor! Scary thoughts... I start to take this more seriously, particularly after the RD conference and what came out of it for me (a fantastic piece of writing offered by a fellow delegate, who may appear here?). I get to thinking that the conditions maybe seem the accelerator, yet wonder of the brakes (Carter Heyward "When Boundaries Betray Us" on badly applied boundaries)... hopefully not a HPC ruleset. I like the 'love of research' thing - for me, its all good PD.

Kereru: Wow, "It almost seems to me as if it casts classical CCT as 'doing' compared with RD's 'being' - with RD as a kind of supercharged version with the whole of the therapist right in there in the mix set against an almost ethereal, perhaps not fully-invested therapist in the 'old school' approach." This really catches me in offering maybe a bit of a reverse view to Sue (and maybe Paul's distrust?), I think theres huge discussion here. For me, Pauls bit about "You still only have the conditions through which to achieve RD - no?" still stands - question is, what are the conditions? Sue has pointed out about congruence being used as an excuse for all sorts of therapist actions, and I feel there is something to be clarified on all this. For me, Otherness is about being fully present without directing, and I feel Rogers saw this as meaning that therapists might well act quite differently (not drones) whilst still offering the conditions - its a mix, I think. The ego thing is a sticky one for me, and goes right into Rogers (1959) idea of increasing symbolisation - is congruence constructed, a removal of conditions of worth or a clearer alignment of perception/awareness with the oneness?

... another sleepless night disposed of...

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Sep 28 10 9:50 AM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

Dear All

The PC Forum in it's self feels to me like an experiment in relational depth. As someone who has been off the scene for sometime it feels good to have this space to meet others.

Frances

PS
it was good to meet you the other day Mark

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Sep 30 10 11:53 PM

Re: Relational Depth Conference 2010

Frances, hi and a belated welcome (back)! I love your comment about an experiment in relational depth - in fact, I'd like to use it in the next round of publicity for the forum if you haven't got it copyrighted. I'm encouraged by the early signs here and hope it proves to be a positive place for all.

Paul x

Paul | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help