Thinking about the limits of the example of Adamsberg

Thinking about the limits of the example of Adamsberg

By Pierre Vermersch

Thinking about the limits of the example of Adamsberg to clarify the N3 and N4 levels of description.

(Read the post which presents the example in detail: http://wp.me/p4AqKY-3W)


Reminder: the description levels of the action: N1 is the overall description of the action; N2: detailed description, defining the basis of the work of Explicitation Interview; N3: Signals of awareness which are superimposed with the description, without being immediately clear; N4: the direction of N3 in respect of the action, that is to say, its organization, the mobilized patterns.

I must admit that I let myself be seduced by the beauty of the N3’s deployed by the author, as model illustrations of what are the intellectual feelings, clear signs of what is still latent and unrecognized (the cat jumping on his back, the grief that leaves helpless, the foreign aggression within himself, the total novelty of these events, his terrible reaction to a poster).

But, by taking the time to think about it, I realize that the example is not that good ! Especially because there is no link between the N3 and the N4 as the organizational level of the action.
The sense update (N4) of these signs of the Potential are these N3, and this update is entirely directed towards the identification of a past event, and then to the recognition of what, in this present, aroused the past, and updated emotions, feelings caused by this past event. In fact, in such an example, we swim in full classical psychotherapy: identification of a past trauma that still now arouses problematic emotional reactions reactivated by present circumstances. The Explicitation Interview never works on this configuration.
Why ?

Because the explicitation interview is not at all intended to work on traumas, on their resolution, it is not a technical help to changing, it is technical assistance to the description, in becoming aware of one’s own experience. In some cases, it may be the preliminary stage of the existing documentation for help in learning projects or in improvement. It is also a privileged instrument for research, for acquisition of descriptive verbalisation in the perspective of a psycho-phenomenology. In opposition to what? Essentially to all care situations taking in charge some difficulties in order to mitigate, modify, negative aspects of them. The Explicitation Interview is not in itself a therapeutic technique. Precisely, the fundamental point for the development of this tool is that it has escaped from the obsessive frameworks that appear as soon as one starts with the idea of ​​helping the other to change and the theoretical impact on sources of difficulties.

 

Yet the example of Vargas seems to me directly inspired by the psychotherapeutic context, even psychoanalytic: that is to say, from the example of a forgotten trauma whose effects continue dynamically as soon as circumstances reactivate, trigger, the past state, and whose signs at first incomprehensible, just give desire to discover what gives such  a powerful effect, what is the past cause, what is the present cause ( by which association the past was awaken). The search for meaning focuses on finding the cause, as historically dated biographical source. This search for the cause can be read in different ways according to the theoretical framework that inspires therapeutic practices: what is the past event that causes? What is the co-identity that comes to the present time which was formed in response to the event? What is the emotion that dominates and how it signs the specific event or identity into question?

 

In doing so, firstly it gives not necessarily the key to the change by the mere fact of recognizing the cause, but over all, from my point of view, we still have no information on the organization of the behavior, of the schemes. What for ?

Two reasons. The first is that the care for the change is so pregnant that it hides the doing, which then appears so secondary to personality disorders. The second is that in this therapeutic setting (at large) we rarely deal with finalized  activities (with a goal) and productive (which aim is to produce a result), we only deal with the incomprehensible response to an event ( unidentified for the moment and therefore invisible to the subject).

 

The 20th century did not authorized itself to take into account the subjectivity , only allowed in the therapeutic setting. The study of cognition has completely been made on the basis of the observable and traces, without consideration of introspective data in first and second person. Whereas most of our daily activities are finalized behavior, aiming for a goal, a result, whether at school, or in training, at work, in leisure moments … The Explicitation Interview reverses this movement to give priority to the elucidation of the unfolding of the finalized sequence of acts. I know all the better to differentiate and not mix the two points of view that I, myself, have had a training and a psychotherapy practice. I worked with the body, emotions, dreams, directed waking dreams, the traumatic history of the person. I know exactly where the boundary is located, and I am careful not to mix. Nevertheless, between psychotherapy and Explicitation Interview, there is a confused area where the two may be mixed: they are all monitoring devices, practical analysis, coaching. In these devices, you never know at the beginning whether the matter is debriefing an act, or limiting beliefs or disabling traumatic traces, or even more serious. The choice of the conductor will depend on his skills, the accompanying contract and of the own ethical limits of the institutional situation.

 

If I return to our example from a novel by Vargas, we are then in the example of the elucidation of a traumatic event, not in the updated details of an action. So, if messages of the Potential are numerous and powerful (the N3’s), we are totally outside the framework of the Explicitation  because we lack of reference to action and thus we miss the possibility of discovering the schemata mobilized by the Potential .

 

 

Print Friendly

Thinking about the limits of the example of Adamsberg

By Pierre Vermersch

Thinking about the limits of the example of Adamsberg to clarify the N3 and N4 levels of description.

(Read the post which presents the example in detail: http://wp.me/p4AqKY-3W)


Reminder: the description levels of the action: N1 is the overall description of the action; N2: detailed description, defining the basis of the work of Explicitation Interview; N3: Signals of awareness which are superimposed with the description, without being immediately clear; N4: the direction of N3 in respect of the action, that is to say, its organization, the mobilized patterns.

I must admit that I let myself be seduced by the beauty of the N3’s deployed by the author, as model illustrations of what are the intellectual feelings, clear signs of what is still latent and unrecognized (the cat jumping on his back, the grief that leaves helpless, the foreign aggression within himself, the total novelty of these events, his terrible reaction to a poster).

But, by taking the time to think about it, I realize that the example is not that good ! Especially because there is no link between the N3 and the N4 as the organizational level of the action.
The sense update (N4) of these signs of the Potential are these N3, and this update is entirely directed towards the identification of a past event, and then to the recognition of what, in this present, aroused the past, and updated emotions, feelings caused by this past event. In fact, in such an example, we swim in full classical psychotherapy: identification of a past trauma that still now arouses problematic emotional reactions reactivated by present circumstances. The Explicitation Interview never works on this configuration.
Why ?

Because the explicitation interview is not at all intended to work on traumas, on their resolution, it is not a technical help to changing, it is technical assistance to the description, in becoming aware of one’s own experience. In some cases, it may be the preliminary stage of the existing documentation for help in learning projects or in improvement. It is also a privileged instrument for research, for acquisition of descriptive verbalisation in the perspective of a psycho-phenomenology. In opposition to what? Essentially to all care situations taking in charge some difficulties in order to mitigate, modify, negative aspects of them. The Explicitation Interview is not in itself a therapeutic technique. Precisely, the fundamental point for the development of this tool is that it has escaped from the obsessive frameworks that appear as soon as one starts with the idea of ​​helping the other to change and the theoretical impact on sources of difficulties.

 

Yet the example of Vargas seems to me directly inspired by the psychotherapeutic context, even psychoanalytic: that is to say, from the example of a forgotten trauma whose effects continue dynamically as soon as circumstances reactivate, trigger, the past state, and whose signs at first incomprehensible, just give desire to discover what gives such  a powerful effect, what is the past cause, what is the present cause ( by which association the past was awaken). The search for meaning focuses on finding the cause, as historically dated biographical source. This search for the cause can be read in different ways according to the theoretical framework that inspires therapeutic practices: what is the past event that causes? What is the co-identity that comes to the present time which was formed in response to the event? What is the emotion that dominates and how it signs the specific event or identity into question?

 

In doing so, firstly it gives not necessarily the key to the change by the mere fact of recognizing the cause, but over all, from my point of view, we still have no information on the organization of the behavior, of the schemes. What for ?

Two reasons. The first is that the care for the change is so pregnant that it hides the doing, which then appears so secondary to personality disorders. The second is that in this therapeutic setting (at large) we rarely deal with finalized  activities (with a goal) and productive (which aim is to produce a result), we only deal with the incomprehensible response to an event ( unidentified for the moment and therefore invisible to the subject).

 

The 20th century did not authorized itself to take into account the subjectivity , only allowed in the therapeutic setting. The study of cognition has completely been made on the basis of the observable and traces, without consideration of introspective data in first and second person. Whereas most of our daily activities are finalized behavior, aiming for a goal, a result, whether at school, or in training, at work, in leisure moments … The Explicitation Interview reverses this movement to give priority to the elucidation of the unfolding of the finalized sequence of acts. I know all the better to differentiate and not mix the two points of view that I, myself, have had a training and a psychotherapy practice. I worked with the body, emotions, dreams, directed waking dreams, the traumatic history of the person. I know exactly where the boundary is located, and I am careful not to mix. Nevertheless, between psychotherapy and Explicitation Interview, there is a confused area where the two may be mixed: they are all monitoring devices, practical analysis, coaching. In these devices, you never know at the beginning whether the matter is debriefing an act, or limiting beliefs or disabling traumatic traces, or even more serious. The choice of the conductor will depend on his skills, the accompanying contract and of the own ethical limits of the institutional situation.

 

If I return to our example from a novel by Vargas, we are then in the example of the elucidation of a traumatic event, not in the updated details of an action. So, if messages of the Potential are numerous and powerful (the N3’s), we are totally outside the framework of the Explicitation  because we lack of reference to action and thus we miss the possibility of discovering the schemata mobilized by the Potential .

 

 

Print Friendly

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée.