Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 17:04:24 +0200
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: M-PSY: Sensate focusing (was "Newbee")


Hi list members and Chris 

Burford wrote:
> 
> Thanks for coming back, Ilan, so pertinently.
> 
> I sympathize with much of what you say, for reasons, that I guess may
> not be apparent to some members of the list. It is non-intuitive and
> not "common sense" to argue that the management of mental illness does not
> require a knowledge of the causes of the illness. But I agree with you on this.
> 
It is most important for mental health workers to know about the causes
of the illness but it is not true as for the specific eruption of the
specific patient. Previous drug research (including main) demonstrated a
strong relation between symptom profile and treatment results but not
between diagnosis and treatment. 
 
As for the psychological working through it is entirely different thing. 

> Let me challenge you however on one  point:
> 
> >>>Prof' Eugin Gendlin and his colleges have found in their research that
> the only active variable in successful psychotherapy is the attention
> paid by clients to their bodily sensations.<<
> 
> This surely is a mis-statement. Your scientific statement should read:
> 
> >>>The only active variable in successful psychotherapy that
> Prof' Eugin Gendlin and his colleges have found in their research
> is the attention paid by clients to their bodily sensations.
> <<
> 
> Your statement as it stands could be claimed by many to be a false negative
> about other research which claims other variables relevant to successful
> psychotherapy. You just do not believe they exist.
> 
> I wonder if anybody else does?

The claim of prof' Gendlin was that they used various kinds of
psychotherapy and the kind of patient - attender or not -  was decided
according to protocol of first two sessions.

As for the exactness of my English it is still wonting...

I will add something to clear things - I am not Gendlin's Follower and I
think that though the attention to the sensation is essential,
additional gradients can be significant. (I.e. they can contribute to
the amount of attention paid, to the active arousal of sensations
related to specific problems, the choice of what to work on, etc.)  
> 
> Your post also raises the ethics of how a politically conscious clinician/
> therapist etc, can do work with patients/clients etc, who are not so
> politically conscious.
> 
In the kind of non-insite non-transferential analysis and nearly
non-verbal approach it is less relevant than in any other technique.
For sure my applicants sensed the measure of my liking or disliking of
their behaviors and ideology, but, the main thing for them was to get
the training and minimal caring I had for the suffering of even the most
reactionaries was enough for a successful outcome for them.
Ilan Shalif
Tel-Aviv
(Near occupied Palestain)

Ilan Shalif 

       E-mail - mailto:gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il
    Home Page - http://www.geocities.com/~drilanshalif

     You CAN teach old dog new tricks BUT it takes allot of effort. 
             So pay attention to the pleasant and unpleasant 
                 bodily sensations... and the troubles
                     will take care of themselves.

                                      Old Dog




     --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---