Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethical milton and grinder |
Posted by: | Todd |
Date/Time: | 05/11/2003 03:07:49 |
D- How about stating an alternative to the definition of ethical therapy as presented in WITW? Not a historical reference to a counter-example. A real definition that allows one to know, "behavior X is ethical, behavior Y is not." This is the open challenge I am hearing from the authors of Whispering... (My read folks) For my part I can't convince myself of the need for or value of introducing content as a matter of principle. At best it does no additional harm but provides no additional value than that of content-free therapy. At worst it does harm and provides less value relative to content-free therapy. My problem is finding a well-formed definition of content vs. structure. Examples in the extreme, I've got, but finer distinctions, not yet. You also state that, "It's (your method) proven effective and word of mouth brings many people to me." What does one have to do with the other? (effectiveness and word of mouth referrals.) If you connect them, then I think you see the muddle you could get into. Respectfully, Todd |