Thanks, Bob. Having studied with Isadore and Jim, I agree completely with you. I did have dreams, for example, that referred to Isadore and the therapy with him. But I had other dreams that did not. Margherita's insistence that every interaction is transferential is just wrong.
I would add that when the relationship was foreground, dealing with it in the present could be extremely powerful. But there were many times when the focus was not on the relationship and I gained supremely from the work we did without focussing on the I and thou. Her approach reminds me of some of what is going on in the relational psychoanalytic turn right now, and what I don't like about it.
Bob's point is crystal clear. Margherita's way of engaging in a so called 'dialogue' feels very resistant, rigid and quite honestly annoying. It is ironic that he had to stay patient exactly like he would with a client who has a frozen, rigid process. When a therapist jumps in with a question filled with assumptions, like " little like me?" It is so irrelevant and in my opinion, a misuse of power. It is like the therapist is interrupting the flow and coming across as a know-it-all expert, which is very much against Gestalt principles. And those principles hold creative indifference, active curiosity, and just like Bob puts clearly as " owning interpretations" as they occur. I think if the intervention was "soon as you said I had a little dream last night, I made a connection ( or assumption) with me being little" which would suggest a possible relevance and not a superhero wannabe intervention as " gotcha! It relates to me being little doesnt it?" I just want to reply " oh shut up and let go of that theory for a minute or two will you?"
Bob seems to me to be alive and present in contact while being lead by the frozen lady into her idealogical stupidity. She starts her answers with "but" while pretends to listen to him. Hers is a very unpleasent way of being in contact, she does not listen only pushes her views. It is not a dialogue but a cunningly hiden fight which I think as a goal has a shamless promotion of somebody who needs it so very dearly, using Bob as spring board. This must stem from her deep inner insecurity. She would make some progress in her life and work by focusing on her emotions instead of crafting an ideology under the name of theory. The more I listen to it the more awfull this meeting seems to me.If you have your own opinion, spread it out by yourself and not use other person to promote yourself. Bob seems to me to be her guest so she could be interested what he says. And she is interested in selfpromotion. For students this video might be used as an example of dishonest contact based on hidden fury of an instigator.Her way of catching Bob did he said or not said "always " or other specific worlds really shows her mental smallness together with a format of her way of contacting. The so called "dialogue" ends on a really sad emotional note. You have a dialogue when both parties are truly interested in even exchenge and not when one is only interested in her own ideas. One can only imagine them working as thereapist/client diad in a ancient Italian way of a a gladiators- there be only one winner.
These speakers are very interested in making the point that they agree to disagree on one single point. Very little dancing, moving about, exploring, laughter.
In a nutshell, the important thing is what is the client in contact with, not what the therapist thinks that the client is in contact with.
This man is a saint. I’m so sorry to hear of his passing .
Great debate between two grand therapists!
Thanks, Bob. Having studied with Isadore and Jim, I agree completely with you. I did have dreams, for example, that referred to Isadore and the therapy with him. But I had other dreams that did not. Margherita's insistence that every interaction is transferential is just wrong.
I would add that when the relationship was foreground, dealing with it in the present could be extremely powerful. But there were many times when the focus was not on the relationship and I gained supremely from the work we did without focussing on the I and thou. Her approach reminds me of some of what is going on in the relational psychoanalytic turn right now, and what I don't like about it.
Is it possible that Margarita uploaded the video at such a low volume because she doesn't really want us to hear this dialogue? 😅
Bob's point is crystal clear. Margherita's way of engaging in a so called 'dialogue' feels very resistant, rigid and quite honestly annoying. It is ironic that he had to stay patient exactly like he would with a client who has a frozen, rigid process. When a therapist jumps in with a question filled with assumptions, like " little like me?" It is so irrelevant and in my opinion, a misuse of power. It is like the therapist is interrupting the flow and coming across as a know-it-all expert, which is very much against Gestalt principles. And those principles hold creative indifference, active curiosity, and just like Bob puts clearly as " owning interpretations" as they occur. I think if the intervention was "soon as you said I had a little dream last night, I made a connection ( or assumption) with me being little" which would suggest a possible relevance and not a superhero wannabe intervention as " gotcha! It relates to me being little doesnt it?" I just want to reply " oh shut up and let go of that theory for a minute or two will you?"
Bob seems to me to be alive and present in contact while being lead by the frozen lady into her idealogical stupidity. She starts her answers with "but" while pretends to listen to him. Hers is a very unpleasent way of being in contact, she does not listen only pushes her views. It is not a dialogue but a cunningly hiden fight which I think as a goal has a shamless promotion of somebody who needs it so very dearly, using Bob as spring board. This must stem from her deep inner insecurity. She would make some progress in her life and work by focusing on her emotions instead of crafting an ideology under the name of theory. The more I listen to it the more awfull this meeting seems to me.If you have your own opinion, spread it out by yourself and not use other person to promote yourself. Bob seems to me to be her guest so she could be interested what he says. And she is interested in selfpromotion. For students this video might be used as an example of dishonest contact based on hidden fury of an instigator.Her way of catching Bob did he said or not said "always " or other specific worlds really shows her mental smallness together with a format of her way of contacting. The so called "dialogue" ends on a really sad emotional note. You have a dialogue when both parties are truly interested in even exchenge and not when one is only interested in her own ideas. One can only imagine them working as thereapist/client diad in a ancient Italian way of a a gladiators- there be only one winner.
These speakers are very interested in making the point that they agree to disagree on one single point. Very little dancing, moving about, exploring, laughter.