| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor) |
| Posted by: | carrie |
| Date/Time: | 24/10/2003 00:21:58 |
|
John, I disagree with the notion that ethical therapy can only be done without the introduction of content. I would replace what you proposed with the suggestion that a balence between process and content is the most important aspect of the therapeutic interaction. Now before you point out the obvious and note that I need to get more specific, please understand that I can't in this moment. Also, I think Matt has respectfully posed the questions quite clearly and I, for one, would like to read your response. Matt's communication does not strike me as combative (as so many do on this list) and his questions regarding Erickson in relation to your ethical proposition is very interesting. As well as the question about contexts other than therapy. I don't believe you went into much details in your book as to these propositions, but even if you did, it seems to be an area that you might not be willing to talk with us about on this list. Are you planning to respond to matt's comments? Plus, until I understand your proposition better, I 'm not sure exactly why I disagree. Like President's Bush's comments today on Iraq; I knew I had major problems with them even though I couldn't understand exactly what he was saying. Oh my, did I just compare Dr. Grinder, one of my favorite writers, with Bush? NO. Please erase previous content and focus only on form. Ha. thanks, carrie |