Definitely- I would have gone for something like “listening” or “discovering.” (I think when I explain it to people, I’ll start off with the rider-elephant model of the conscious-unconscious brain, and then call it listening to your elephant.)
Definitely- I would have gone for something like “listening” or “discovering.” (I think when I explain it to people, I’ll start off with the rider-elephant model of the conscious-unconscious brain, and then call it listening to your elephant.)
Yep. He might’ve had an even bigger bestseller with a name like “Listening To Your Inner Self” or “The Wisdom Within” or some such.
Going somewhat back to the topic at hand, one of the best things about LW over the years has been finding out about stuff like this, prospect theory, and a whole bunch of other topics in research that I otherwise wouldn’t have heard of and incorporated into my work. I’d still be spending a lot of time trying to come up with exercises to teach what Gendlin already has in his book, for example.
I’m haven’t read Gendlin but got my interaction with emotions from other sources.
When trying to explain it to someone I think it can be useful to teach by example.
“Where in your body do you feel the emotion? Put your hand on that spot.”
The hand is a good feedback to know that the person understood what you want from them.
It also helps them to be more aware of the emotion.
From there it depends on what I want to do. If the goal is simply about knowledge it can be useful to let the person describe what they are feeling.
I don’t know whether having a word to describe the process helps for implementation in a way where it becomes your default way of dealing with emotions.
Definitely- I would have gone for something like “listening” or “discovering.” (I think when I explain it to people, I’ll start off with the rider-elephant model of the conscious-unconscious brain, and then call it listening to your elephant.)
Yep. He might’ve had an even bigger bestseller with a name like “Listening To Your Inner Self” or “The Wisdom Within” or some such.
Going somewhat back to the topic at hand, one of the best things about LW over the years has been finding out about stuff like this, prospect theory, and a whole bunch of other topics in research that I otherwise wouldn’t have heard of and incorporated into my work. I’d still be spending a lot of time trying to come up with exercises to teach what Gendlin already has in his book, for example.
Listening seems to be a bad word when you want someone to focus on something kinesthetic.
“Gendling”.
Is there a word you like better than “listening” and “focusing”? Maybe “attuning”?
I’m fond of “attending”.
I’m haven’t read Gendlin but got my interaction with emotions from other sources.
When trying to explain it to someone I think it can be useful to teach by example. “Where in your body do you feel the emotion? Put your hand on that spot.”
The hand is a good feedback to know that the person understood what you want from them. It also helps them to be more aware of the emotion.
From there it depends on what I want to do. If the goal is simply about knowledge it can be useful to let the person describe what they are feeling.
I don’t know whether having a word to describe the process helps for implementation in a way where it becomes your default way of dealing with emotions.
“Monitoring”? (I’m not actually familiar with the subject.)