访问情绪聚焦疗法创始人格林伯格(上)心理学空间

Phil: Which is what to you?
Phil: 你指得是什么？

Leslie: Well, I saw it as pathological notions of radical independence. And I was always much more, although it wasn't articulated at that time, interested in a model of relational interdependence.
Leslie: 我指的是病态的彻底独立概念。虽然那时我的想法还未整合成形，但我一直对独立-互持关系模型更有兴趣。

Phil: A sort of systems thing?
Phil: 是某种系统的东西吗？

Leslie: Well, no. I guess it's a difference between self-sufficiency and self-support. I saw a lot of people in Gestalt as trying to be or believing in self-sufficiency.
Leslie: 哦，不。我想自足和自我支持之间有差别。我在完形治疗中看到很多人试图达到或相信可以自足。

Phil: Sort of independent?
Phil: 是某种独立？

Leslie: Right, the radical independence. Which is exemplified in the Gestalt prayer. And I believe that we need other people, and that that's actually an important part of being human, and that interdependence, as opposed to independence or dependence, is very important. My connections are a part of who I am and are important in understanding who I am; I can't understand myself without understanding my connections. And I believe that's very much what Buber was saying.
Leslie: 对，彻底的独立。完形祈祷词中可以作为例证。我相信我们需要他人，这是作为人类的一个重要方面。独立互持，不同于独立或依赖，是非常重要的。我与他人的联结属于“我是谁”的一部分，对于理解“我是谁”也很重要；若不了解我的联结，就无法了解我自己。我相信这就是Buber所说的。

Phil: Would this be compatible with the idea of a constantly forming self?
Phil: 这跟不断形成自我的理念一致吗？

Leslie: Yes, absolutely, but so could a radical independence view be a constantly forming self.
Leslie: 当然，不过彻底的独立同样可以认为它也意味着“不断形成的自我”。

Phil: Okay
Phil: 好，我懂了。

Leslie: That could be totally self-forming, self-organizing. And part of my view is that we need field support in order to constantly organize. And that what we are organizing is always a synthesis of inner and outer. The self that I'm organizing at the moment is a function of the field. So it's highly compatible with the modern interpretations of Goodman, with Wheeler's and subsequent sort of interpretation, or clarification of Goodman - that the self is forming at the boundary as a function of the field.
Leslie: 那可是绝对的自我形成、自我组织。但我的部分观点是：我们需要场域支持才能不断组织。我们所不断组织的总是内在与外在的综合。某个瞬间我所组织的自我是依赖于场域的。这与Goodman的阐释、后来Wheeler的阐释乃至Goodman的澄清十分一致——在场域作用下， 自我在人际边沿形成。

Phil: You're talking about Gestalt Reconsidered?
Phil: 你在说《完形再思考》这本书？

Phil: Yes. It seems that you're saying there was a lot in Gestalt that was tied up in this radical independence, associated with the Perls' mystique, and also that didn't get at some of the things you were seeing in the Rogerian empathic attunement - the relationship. I find it interesting when you say that you didn't find the relationship in Gestalt as compared to Rogers, because for me, coming to Gestalt in the midst of a program which is highly cognitive, and also listening to Iris talk (it was the relationship which was the aspect of Gestalt which was attractive to her), I have found relational things in Gestalt through the dialogical.
Phil: 哦，你好像在说完形治疗被限死在这种激进的独立上，跟Perls的神秘魅力有关，缺乏你在Rogerian身上看到的和弦共情——关系。当你将完形治疗与 Rogers相比较，说，没有看到关系时，我觉得很有趣。因为我是从认知治疗项目中转到完形疗法来的，同时听Iris讲座（完形对她的吸引力就在于关系），我从完形治疗里看到了相似于关系的东西：那就是它的“对话”。