#1: Interpret instead of observe
exp of Interpretation: John you were being such a coward by not responding to my request
exp of observation: John, I notice that it has been two days since I asked you for a response.
If you want to start a Flame War with somebody online make sure to have at least three interpretation in your comments.
example of good start for Flame War:
"Sally, I haven't come across such silly (interpretion number 1) statements in a long time. Your lack of courage (interpretation #2) is stunning. Perhaps if you cared more about truth (interpretation #3) we could get somewhere."
Example of bad start to Flame War:
Sally, I did not understand your last few statments. Is this a topic that really mattes to you? It is important to me that we use our time well and I'd be willing to find a topic that we can both get fired up about. Please let me know if you can think of a modifaction that would make a difference?"
#2: Assume that what you are feeling is not caused by your own unmet needs.
exp: John, you make me so mad by not responding to my post.
If you assume that your feelings are caused by unmet needs in yourself and if you communicate from this assumption, you probably won't get the Flame War you are looking for. Here is an example of making that mistake:
exp: John, I'm feeling frustrated because my need for clear communicaiton isn't being met.
#3 Never make clear requests as to how somebody can help you meet your needs. Always blame them for doing something they shouldn't have....
this is NOT the way to start a flame war: John, could you help me meet my wish for clear communication by responding to my last question?
This IS the way to start a flame: John, I guess you just don't care about Freedom but would rather engage in self-indulgent nonesense!
extra tip: If you just NEED to make requests at all, make them very unspecific, like:
Sally, Could you please write something with some backbone? Or "Sally, please give me a reason to care?
These are just tips.
gulp
idea
I'm thinking about starting a journal that will explore the principals of non-violent communication and how it can be put into practice........It would be a nice place on this site to not only explore creatively the concrete effects of how we put things, but we could also use our very communications from other conversatoins on the site as grist for the mill.
Non-Violent Communication is based on such simple principals that I might just start by listing those. It could be fun to read our posts here through the lens of these principals,
to notice when somebody is making an observation rather than an interpretation
to notice when somebody is talking about thoughts AS IF they are feelings
(Your comments make me feel like you don't care about this subject
)
In that example, the person is actually having a thought (you don't care about this subject) but she obscures this thought by calling it a feeling.....She might have said something like:
I feel hurt because your statement that "this is all so petty" caught me off gaurd. I really enjoy knowing I am being respected in conversation and so far I'm not getting that from you. Could you let me know if this topic is something you care about?
I notice that I'm thinking you don't respect my intelligence. This might be because I've interpreted you last two comments to mean you think I'm not smart. It would help me to know if you think there is something specific I could understand better. (or) it would help me if you would please minimize comments like "Well obviously you haven't studied....or....Well, I'm struck by how simplistic you are taking this...."these comments get in the way of me feeling connected to you as we dialog and it's important to me that I am able to feel some warmth when I'm in conversation...."
It takes courage to communicate this way (not only because it can sound very cheeeeeeeesy....) because it asks us to be very honest with ourselves and not rely on our favorate conversational defense mechanisms.
gulp
Subtlety of feeling
Interesting...
It seems that Marshall Rosenberg's definition of feeling excludes the felt sense of Gendlin. I base this observation on reading and listening to Rosenberg, not the above posts. Not enough time or motivation to explicate further just now...
How does one square these diverse points of view?
Hi John; felt sense and NVC
You can make your question even wider! Try to find any system of thought that studies the role of experienced meaning in experiencing: gendlin chose to call this function "felt-sense" but it really is only the function that he wishes to explicate. (I love to imagine young Steiner writing PoF in a cafe and leaning back in his chair as he places his attention on the felt-sense and moves from there)
It's amazing to look for an acknowledgment of felt-sense anywhere; you find wonderful phenomelogists (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty) and existentialists who zero in on the fact that the pre-conceptual aspect of human experiencing needs to be explored, but you can't find anything about the actual functioning of the felt-sense. When Gendlin was a young philosopher this is what struck him that he was in new water. The thinkers that had taught him the most were going right to the edge of the felt-sense and then placing their favorite (and often USEFUL) new concepts in front of it. You can't think without felt-sensing (but that doesn't mean you consciously let a felt-sense form); Steiner was 13 years old reading Kant and he knew (experiential meaning) that he was rejecting Kant in some unclear way that only learning from Kant could teach him. This gesture of how a rejecting of something can also be a necessary accepting of it at the same time can make beautiful sense by simply knowing how a felt-sense always is functioning. The same PoF that would eventually be explicated in a 1894 form was needing to learn from Kant exactly why it was rejecting Kant back in 1875.
The activity of felt-sensing IS the activity of PoFing, we might say; the explication may or may not carry a felt-meaning forward. NVC is carrying something forward for an increasing amount of people. It does not teach about the role of felt-sense. Steiner obviously utilized felt-sensing like all human being; and like many of those early phenomenologists, Steiner came very close to directly explicating its role. In the 1894 book, he is closer than most philosophies at the time, but he still asks that we start with constructs of experience. In "Anthroposophy- a Fragment", he is right up next to it. It is interesting that he never finished "Fragment" because he said he couldn't find the right words, "language would not yield itself" to his thinking. Imagine if a friendly Gendlin had pulled up a chair beside Steiner and introduced TAE to Steiner's sense of meaning that was wanting to find language! Steiner did say that it would not be long until such meanings could find the appropriate languaging. I see that this was the task of the phenomenologists and existentialists who ushered in new ways of talking about the pre-conceptual nature of human experience.
I think the reason Rosenberg's NVC has become grabbed by so many individuals and groups is because it is a system that eliminates so many of the habits that block human connection, and it introduces two easy practices that support people "going inside" to really be with what they most need. You can see why Gendlin's practice of "focusing" can fit so beautifully with NVC. In fact many focusers are teaching how you can very easily put them together in NVC partnerships. All it takes is that when you "go in" to find the "need" that is producing the feeling, you let the felt-sense develop before you speak. Very powerful!
As Gendlin says: only point's of view can argue, experiencing can not. Because NVC and Focusing each are so grounded as consciousness soul practices, they fit very well in my opinion (although I think Gendlin's work epitimizes the consciousness soul because it researches the creation of meaning from Inside). I'm not disagreeing with your claim that they need to be squared, but I haven't run up against it myself. I think that is why focusing is so powerful: I almost can't imagine any human activity in which you can't also take a moment to pause and let the experiential-meaning form as well.
But, yes, Rosenburg is not asking us to work with felt-meaning explicitly. But his practice cleary respects whatever a human finds when taking the time to go inside!
gulp
Feelings and rights
Hmm, gulp, you sound like you know what you are talking about here. I accept that you have your view on this, and hope you can explain something that has put me off recommending NVC wholeheartedly. I have limited experience of NVC, a number of acquaintances who support NVC completely, and a friend who has withdrawn from involvement. I do not understand it fully and my reservation does not encourage me to explore further.
Listening to recorded sessions of Marshall Rosenberg, he refuses to accept any vague language as representing a feeling. He is very aware of language usage. Unlike Gendlin, he has a finite list of words for human feelings. Rosenberg does not accept a statement claiming a feeling until the person gets it down to one word like, anger, hurt, frustration, etc. He appears really tough on that point. I have been castigated by a person who has done the training: that is not a feeling. From this position of claiming a feeling the sufferer goes on to claim a need and make a demand. I may be slightly simplifying here.
The result of this is that the claimant loses touch with the original sensitivity of their own feeling – in my limited experience – and externalises all options of a resolution into a challenging interaction with the person who is the source of the tension. This is not a recipe for taking responsibility for own feelings, let alone getting in touch with the felt sense. In effect another person gets the blame and is requested to change their behaviour. I know we are only on the way to freedom, but is the claim of a right to satisfaction a path to freedom? I may have rights but can I ethically make demands?
I am also questioning your statement, gulp: his practice clearly respects whatever a human finds when taking the time to go inside. Am I missing something? Please be brutal! It may help my thinking on the Freedom and Fireworks journal.
Let me start with where you
Let me start with where you finish, John. You say/ask:
"I am also questioning your statement, gulp: his practice clearly respects whatever a human finds when taking the time to go inside. Am I missing something? Please be brutal!"
You are only missing what I failed to say, which is this: I can only work with any system in the way it actually works for me. I imagine there are people who use NVC as a guide and are considered wonderful listeners and I imagine there are those who are considered awful. And I certainly can't speak for NVC as a registered guide or anything. As I propose that we become conscious in how we speak to each other, I am only offering those aspects of NVC that work for me and that I can vouche for, however I should say right away that I present them in my way not as a spokesperson.
When it comes to naming the feeling, here is how I think about it: All I care about is making sure that a thought isn't getting hidden into the feeling:
"I feel like you are racist" is that a type of feeling or a specific thought; the feeling might be....anger....sadness....shock....(this is where I am with you: we need to let the person have pure freedom in how the express their freedoms, but that does not mean we don't have to listen for this distinction; obviously if a person shouts, "hey, I FEEL he is a racist" then we don't need to shout back. We can express our confusion and request for clairty..." It's too bad that people can use NVC to beat each other up, but hey, there are brutal focusers as well!
I wouldn't ever tell you that "that is not a feeling" but I might share my personal confusion if yousaid,
"I feel he is trying to control me" NVC does indeed suggest that there is a feeling of..........something......that hasn't been said. I personally will start with that assumption but never tell somebody they are wrong. Does that help?
gulp
p.s. I would not say that I can recommend NVC wholeheartedly because I really only know it my way. Then again, I can't recommend Steiner or even my child wholeheartedly. When people ask to set up play dates with my daughter, I mostly gulp and then ask them about their child's temperment!!!
Helpful
That is helpful - thanks.
The jury can stay out on this, until we have more to go on.
kick 'em out
I say we kick out the jury and only talk to what is working for us!!!!!!
I have a theory. You wanna hear it?
gulp
Theory Jury
Go on, gulp, tease me...
you're a natural
The Wisconsin Project was the largest experiment in therapy in it's time and probably hasn't been supplanted in scope or resources. Gendlin was in charge of working with the data as it came in. This is when he discovered that the success of therapy could be accurately predicted just by listening to tapes of the first session. And it didn't matter what kind of therapist was doing the work. He found that if the client was pausing and groping for words, saying things like,
"well...it's like anger but....more like a joyful anger...no..."
these were the clients who took consistant steps in healing....
they were natural felt-sensers: they naturally wanted to place their attention on the bodily edge of experiencing and move from there; so they said rather strange things at times.....Gendlin then wondered if this could be learned......
My theory: you are one of those natural focusers. Whereas most people plunck down into a mere feeling, your tendency is to stay on it's edge. That's why you don't feel satisfied when told to "pick a word"....you are already focusing on that vauge yet percise edge that is about to say more...If this is so than you are damn right about needing to reject their rejection! I bet that a skilled listener would be able to work with what comes up for you and still make sure that there is a distinction between an evaluation and an experiencing....
gotta run,
gulp
Theory testing
Not sure ... well I am often hesitant when waiting, letting the right word come, calling the silence to open. Maybe I could re-evaluate my lack of flow when speaking - perhaps it is not just a weakness of comprehension? Dunno gulp...
You wrote: there is a distinction between an evaluation and an experiencing. This is an appalling vulnerability you have uncovered - often I am not sure if I can distinguish these two...