Hi Heiki,
Thanks for your response. As a point of clarification, I'm not referring to
the physical arrangements of the representatives as the "map".
Rather, what I'm suggesting is that in the subtle space of the Field, most
facilitators make sense of that space by pairing their intuition with their
"map". The map is made up of a set of principles,
and insights/expectations from previous experiences and from other
teachers. My wondering is to what degree this map shapes what presents
itself when they set up the representatives.
In your question, for example, you named some of the basic principles
Hellinger identified (exlusion, order, balancing give and take). This is
your map (and mine as well, usually).
I am inclined to agree that different maps give different results. This is
true in our ordinary physical space as well. Most western
trained psychotherapists use a map (their understanding of the inner
psychological space) that doesn't include an ancestors. From the view of
most constellators, that map reveals a very limited landscape.
Your question of the many ways to do a constellation is a good one. Perhaps
others will comment on that.
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Heiki Eesmaa heiki.eesmaa@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With classic constellations, the tools (setting up representatives) and
the map (consisting visually of the ideal image of family and of the rules
of systemic order) come together harmoniously. The image of the family
would be much harder to work with purely in the mind's eye.
On the other hand, when using representatives in another map, yeah,
everything seems to work, somewhat, but the field feels much less neat.
Also, in another map, there is a question as to what extent principles of
family constellations apply -- yes, there are certain elements that must
belong or be included, but what are these? How do we find out the hierarchy
between them, assuming there is one? How to work with balancing give and
take in another map?
Also, is the minimalist, so-called 'phenomenological' stance still
helpful? (This one though I have the least questions about.)
I admit all of the above might be a question of developing the craft
skills of constellation work, but perhaps the artistic vision is placing
impossible demands on the craft? Sure you could do a constellation on
muscle tension, but perhaps there is still a place for bodywork :/
all the best
Heiki
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Alison Fornes maitreya71@xxxxxxxxx
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maitreya71@xxxxxxxxx');>
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm fresh off of a beautiful weekend workshop facilitated by Jakob and
Sieglinde Schneider, so I've got lots of thoughts I'm processing.
What I'm interested in are the maps that we use when we are in the Field.
Clearly, all of us are familiar with and probably apply Bert's map,
recognizing the orders of love and other dynamics at play. Franz Ruppert
has a map of trauma that he applies with his constellations of
intention (which I only know academically, not through personal
experience). Other maps may be more shamanic, working with soul retrievals
and fragments of the self, others may be from a psychological view of the
interior, such as the inner child. Dan Booth Cohen uses a map of the Three
Dimensions of Consciousness.
I am curious about our maps and how conscious we are of them. What I am
noticing is how each map has it's own features, and through the observer
effect, actually creates the landscape of the Field that we experience when
we work.
I have had the thought that I would like to be knowledgeable of many
maps, and intentional about which I am using each time I enter the Field.
--
*It is the courageous heart that loves. It is the loving heart that
heals.alisonfornes.com <http://alisonfornes.com>*
