| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor) |
| Posted by: | Jon Edwards |
| Date/Time: | 23/10/2003 13:56:46 |
|
Hi Todd Thanks for your thoughts, the discussion process is helping me to refine my understandings. Here's some more thoughts (in the spirit of joint exploration!) - If the metaphor is a formula, where you replace elements from their problem with fictitious elements (therapeutic algebra?), are you giving them a formula containing (what you believe to be) "the answer" to their specific problem, or a more generic formula for problem solving? Does the formula operate at the same logical level as the problem, or the level(s) above - are you mapping-across or are you mapping-up? If a problem is a journey in which your client has lost their way, does your metaphor tell them the "correct route" or does it help them make a map of the area (or a new map if they already have one) from which they can select their own preferred route? If their map is the problem (and their problem is the map), are you giving them your map, or are you helping them understand and refine their own map-making processes, so that they can make a new map? So the answer to, "Is metaphor content?" would be, "It depends!" If it suggests a solution on the same logical level as the problem, then it's just content in disguise? The idea of FORM is interesting. If we say that form is an abstraction of the pattern that you perceive in their content, then to describe that form to the client in a metaphor could give them a useful second description (a new perspective) of their problem. I guess the difference that makes a difference is that the therapist should offer that description in a way that the client can refute or clarify, and should not go on to prescribe solutions (metaphorical or otherwise)? Cheers, Jon |