Understanding V1, V2, V3 notation in the practice of the explicitation interview

Understanding V1, V2, V3 notation in the practice of 

the explicitation interview

By Pierre Vermersch

 

The explicitation interview was created and developed from several intuitions, themselves coming from my lived experiences. I described this progession in the first chapter of my book « Explicitation and phenomenology ».

Gradually, its utilization led to formalizations, systematizations and new formulations of questions. But then it became necessary to understand better what we were doing and to do so, it was logical and obvious to start by practicing the explicitation of the technics of the explicitation interview.

The tool became an object of study, but was still the privileged instrument of study applied to the description of its uses! As attention is necessary to study attention, the explicitation interview was the ideal tool to study the actions implemented in its practice.

Then we encountered many difficulties to talk about what we were studying : every time there was confusion as to whether we were talking about the experience studied, or about the experience of explaining this experience studied, or about the lived experience of explaining the explicitation… Gradually, the need to establish clear benchmarks for naming the different times of exploration and the different activities that characterize them became necessary.

As such, we created a basic vocabulary designating three types of lived experiences, corresponding to three separate activities.

– V1 is the lived experience of reference, that is to say, the past singular moment that has been chosen to be described and explained.

There is only one reference of a lived experience, it is not necessary to add any index whatsoever, whereas for other types of lived experiences the question will arise. I recall that for the explicitation interview, the reference of the lived experience can only be a moment (a short time to study in detail its begetting), and that this moment is singular (singular occurrence, not a typical case treated as a general case). Otherwise, there are no a priori limits to the variety of reference of lived experiences that may be the subject of an explicitation interview.
– V2 is the lived experience of the explicitation, when my work is to remember V1 in evocation, and describe it in a detailed way.

V2 has the characteristic of being a time off from usual activity, in order to deal only with calling up the past in a targeted way. But what is important is that V2 mobilizes the remembrance of the activity, and that this activity is twofold, it has always two layers: the first is the content of evocation, this content is composed itself of actions when this layer becomes present; the second layer concerns the actions implemented at the time to remember the past, such as arousing an awakening intention, getting in evocation, detailing a lived experience. If we want to develop a science of the explicitation, we must describe, take note of this second layer and understand the distinction outcome from Husserl’s phenomenology, between content and act, between noema and noesis.

– V3 is the lived experience of the explicitation of explicitation interview, in other words it is the moment where I get content of this new interview what was experienced during V2. But not all the V2! For if we include the content of V2, we will return to V1 and we will learn nothing, for example, on the act of evocation which allows its access. If we take the description of V1, it is not a V3, but a V2,2. That is to say a second interview on the initial reference V1 lived. For this to be a V3, we must question the actions undertaken during the V2 interview. Our experience has shown us that it was not obvious! In our first attempts to describe acts of evocation we just slipped on the content of evocation. When we wanted to study the attentional shifts when conducting the interview, we did not know what to ask, for lack of a categorization for recognition of acts that could be questioned. V3 is a lived experience that means a phenomenological description of the acts of the explicitation.

It is possible to resume the interview on the acts of the interview several times, it will not make V4 or V5, … but V3,2, V3,3, etc.
Could the V4 rating have a sense? To do this, it would reflect a sufficiently different activity than V2 (clarification of past acts and acts of content of the acts produced during V1) and during V3 (explicit acts occured when V2). Or, one might ask what would be the activity that overhangs V3 and deserves to be named V4; which would overhang in the same way, but transposed to the fact that overhangs V1 V2 V3 and overlooks the actions produced by V2? Questioning acts at V3 , would only reproduce the practice of V3, which means to aim a double lived experience by not focusing on content but on the acts. In both cases, we have the same fundamental : understand the difference between content and act in a lived experience and categorize the act in order to identify them and question them precisely. What would overhang V3 would be the act of thinking, thematizing and formalizing the experiences. Therefore, we leave explicitation and its practice to study the intellectual act of thematization ( in the Piagetian sense) which calls for a study of a represented content in order to name it, categorize it, semiotize it whith a langage which abstracts from the concrete to go towards different forms of abstraction. So it seems to me senseless to use a V4 mark in practicing the explicitation.

 

Developing this reference system V1, V2, V3 has been a great help for the research on the practice of explicitation and it seems essential to me for every psychophenomenological research.

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly

Understanding V1, V2, V3 notation in the practice of 

the explicitation interview

By Pierre Vermersch

 

The explicitation interview was created and developed from several intuitions, themselves coming from my lived experiences. I described this progession in the first chapter of my book « Explicitation and phenomenology ».

Gradually, its utilization led to formalizations, systematizations and new formulations of questions. But then it became necessary to understand better what we were doing and to do so, it was logical and obvious to start by practicing the explicitation of the technics of the explicitation interview.

The tool became an object of study, but was still the privileged instrument of study applied to the description of its uses! As attention is necessary to study attention, the explicitation interview was the ideal tool to study the actions implemented in its practice.

Then we encountered many difficulties to talk about what we were studying : every time there was confusion as to whether we were talking about the experience studied, or about the experience of explaining this experience studied, or about the lived experience of explaining the explicitation… Gradually, the need to establish clear benchmarks for naming the different times of exploration and the different activities that characterize them became necessary.

As such, we created a basic vocabulary designating three types of lived experiences, corresponding to three separate activities.

– V1 is the lived experience of reference, that is to say, the past singular moment that has been chosen to be described and explained.

There is only one reference of a lived experience, it is not necessary to add any index whatsoever, whereas for other types of lived experiences the question will arise. I recall that for the explicitation interview, the reference of the lived experience can only be a moment (a short time to study in detail its begetting), and that this moment is singular (singular occurrence, not a typical case treated as a general case). Otherwise, there are no a priori limits to the variety of reference of lived experiences that may be the subject of an explicitation interview.
– V2 is the lived experience of the explicitation, when my work is to remember V1 in evocation, and describe it in a detailed way.

V2 has the characteristic of being a time off from usual activity, in order to deal only with calling up the past in a targeted way. But what is important is that V2 mobilizes the remembrance of the activity, and that this activity is twofold, it has always two layers: the first is the content of evocation, this content is composed itself of actions when this layer becomes present; the second layer concerns the actions implemented at the time to remember the past, such as arousing an awakening intention, getting in evocation, detailing a lived experience. If we want to develop a science of the explicitation, we must describe, take note of this second layer and understand the distinction outcome from Husserl’s phenomenology, between content and act, between noema and noesis.

– V3 is the lived experience of the explicitation of explicitation interview, in other words it is the moment where I get content of this new interview what was experienced during V2. But not all the V2! For if we include the content of V2, we will return to V1 and we will learn nothing, for example, on the act of evocation which allows its access. If we take the description of V1, it is not a V3, but a V2,2. That is to say a second interview on the initial reference V1 lived. For this to be a V3, we must question the actions undertaken during the V2 interview. Our experience has shown us that it was not obvious! In our first attempts to describe acts of evocation we just slipped on the content of evocation. When we wanted to study the attentional shifts when conducting the interview, we did not know what to ask, for lack of a categorization for recognition of acts that could be questioned. V3 is a lived experience that means a phenomenological description of the acts of the explicitation.

It is possible to resume the interview on the acts of the interview several times, it will not make V4 or V5, … but V3,2, V3,3, etc.
Could the V4 rating have a sense? To do this, it would reflect a sufficiently different activity than V2 (clarification of past acts and acts of content of the acts produced during V1) and during V3 (explicit acts occured when V2). Or, one might ask what would be the activity that overhangs V3 and deserves to be named V4; which would overhang in the same way, but transposed to the fact that overhangs V1 V2 V3 and overlooks the actions produced by V2? Questioning acts at V3 , would only reproduce the practice of V3, which means to aim a double lived experience by not focusing on content but on the acts. In both cases, we have the same fundamental : understand the difference between content and act in a lived experience and categorize the act in order to identify them and question them precisely. What would overhang V3 would be the act of thinking, thematizing and formalizing the experiences. Therefore, we leave explicitation and its practice to study the intellectual act of thematization ( in the Piagetian sense) which calls for a study of a represented content in order to name it, categorize it, semiotize it whith a langage which abstracts from the concrete to go towards different forms of abstraction. So it seems to me senseless to use a V4 mark in practicing the explicitation.

 

Developing this reference system V1, V2, V3 has been a great help for the research on the practice of explicitation and it seems essential to me for every psychophenomenological research.

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée.