I first noticed the way in which Circling was trying to implement empiricism early in my Circling experience, but it fully crystallized when a Circler said something that rhymes with P.C. Hodgell’s “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” I can’t remember the words precisely, but it was something like “in the practice, I have a deep level of trust that I should be open to the universe.”
I am deeply puzzled that you see these things as expressing the same sentiment.
To be clear, are you saying that your interpretation of the latter quote’s meaning (the one about being “open to the universe”) comes from the speaker’s explanation of what he meant by it? Or, is the quote all there was, and the explanation is your own gloss?
To be clear, are you saying that your interpretation of the latter quote’s meaning (the one about being “open to the universe”) comes from the speaker’s explanation of what he meant by it? Or, is the quote all there was, and the explanation is your own gloss?
He definitely said a longer sentence, but I think most of the explanatory power came from what he was responding to, which I no longer remember the details of but which I remember as having the emotional content of “I am afraid to do X because I don’t know how it will turn out.”
I think the Litany of Gendlin sorta bridges between those sentiments—anything that can be destroyed by the truth should be, because it cannot be a load-bearing belief since it doesn’t do any work.
Of course, the amount of effort you have to put in to (re)construct a properly working belief may be significant and the interval in between may be quite unsettling.
I am deeply puzzled that you see these things as expressing the same sentiment.
To be clear, are you saying that your interpretation of the latter quote’s meaning (the one about being “open to the universe”) comes from the speaker’s explanation of what he meant by it? Or, is the quote all there was, and the explanation is your own gloss?
He definitely said a longer sentence, but I think most of the explanatory power came from what he was responding to, which I no longer remember the details of but which I remember as having the emotional content of “I am afraid to do X because I don’t know how it will turn out.”
I think the Litany of Gendlin sorta bridges between those sentiments—anything that can be destroyed by the truth should be, because it cannot be a load-bearing belief since it doesn’t do any work.
Of course, the amount of effort you have to put in to (re)construct a properly working belief may be significant and the interval in between may be quite unsettling.