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 Paul sneakily posted an unpublished paper I put together - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=65 which argues that: 1.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 However, in an unpublished presentation, I lightheartedly proposed that given this, then evolution would maybe see the sex-drive based on this - otherwise we would not be the 'fittest',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...