Thank you John and Seth for this excellent conversation! As someone who has been learning from you for some time, John -- and who delights in your several long-form "hemispheric laterality and dual attention" dialogues with Iain McGilchrist -- I listened attentively as you and Seth explored and unpacked IFS in the broader contexts of Jung, and of EFT. I hung on each idea y'all explored, and wondered how Iain might add his perspective to this confluence. I have been actively learning from Richard Schwartz and using IFS for several years, as an IFS-skilled coach (not as a therapist). It might be helpful to mention the four primary objectives of IFS: Liberate burdened parts; Restore Trust with Self; Reharmonize the inner system; (and) Develop Self-leadership, both internally and externally. Also, while the work to develop reliable access to "Self" was among the most challenging aspects of developing my IFS skills, it is profoundly rewarding for me in my profession, and also in my everyday life as a person, a spouse, and a father! While it won't fit your academic rigor, John, here's one of the metaphors I use to convey a sense for the IFS "Self": Self is akin to a "force" (i.e. an energy field) that is both transparent and which also, paradoxically, casts a shadow. (Not a Jungian shadow; just a shadow.) It is the pure and untarnished force that animated me at the moment of my conception, which set me apart from a microscopic pile of inert chemicals, and which continues to animate each of the trillions of autonomous cells that comprise this iteration of "me". To commenter @eqapo... You mentioned the recent interview that Dick Schwartz did on Scott Barry Kaufman's Psychology Podcast. Agreed! I found that conversation to be useful and nuanced, although its apparent simplicity might be deceptive for folks who are new to IFS. (Here's the link: ua-cam.com/video/kmpE8gWzH2M/v-deo.html) And here's a great conversation Dick did with Sam Stern from the Esalen Institute in California. This was posted recently on YT, but it was originally recorded a little while ago. (Link: ua-cam.com/video/6MesvXKa8Rg/v-deo.html) For anyone who is familiar with the book "No Bad Parts", you will recognize one of the transcripts in the book as being segments from that interview. Listening to the actual recording is both touching and inspiring. Kudos to Sam and his "inner team" (system) for his collective willingness to participate in such a beautiful and candid, open and curious, and vulnerable way. On this, the 40th anniversary of Internal Family Systems, I'm grateful for IFS and for the vast knowledge Dr. Richard Schwartz has imparted to the world through the many books he has authored and co-authored, the formal trainings for IFS, the interviews he has graciously given, and his openness to having others promote and enhance the IFS model and protocol. I for one continue to grow in the company of this kind, compassionate, Self-aware, and Self-giving leader. Kind and respectful regards to you, John and Seth, and to the Vervaeke audience, - Richard "Tomorrow's mastery begins with mental calm today."
Already posted these notes to twitter, but just in case you don’t check it: By the sound of it, you probably were blended when you had that socratic dialog with your parts (which is not any kind of failure). Parts can also be curious, the 8 Cs are a simplified shorthand for the qualities that Self brings to relationship. The curiosity you're describing sounds like an intellectual one, while the curiosity of Self is in my experience more in-line with something like awe or wonder, a desire to know on a connective level. A second diagnostic question you could ask to check for 'Self-like parts' (what I call Self-ing Protectors) would be 'Can you be with this part exactly as it is, without needing to change it?' Self-ing parts cannot honestly answer 'yes' to that question. Seth does an excellent job of articulating the origins of IFS and how it works, though I do take some issue with his description of “pulling apart.” The family, or the inner-family, is already fragmented. The work we do with IFS is integration and harmonization, we're not pulling things apart. It's also too (for lack of a better word) violent for me. We can't force parts to separate or to do anything, it always requires their consent. We're facilitating a dialog, not pulling something apart or dissecting it. Feeling like a mechanic. There is a method to walking, but the method is secondary to the journey it takes you on. If it feels mechanistic, that's in part because you're still at the surface level relationship with parts. Those "diagnostic questions" are ice-breakers - they're easy surface-level questions we ask to get to know a part at the early stage of the relationship, just like with (most) people. On Self being the parent who can help the part regulate: yep, that is written down. IFS is often referred to as attachment therapy taken inside. Guides are not parts, they are considered external energies that come into the system from elsewhere, though they may stick around or have been there for a long time. They're...non-natives. Self does not have a stable location anywhere. Dissociation can completely take us out of our body, Dick would say Self is being taken out of the body.
@@Sethwallison Thank you for reading them, I really enjoyed this conversation! Also my username is a website, a massive free resource largely grounded in IFS, if you’d like to check it out. I’d love to get your (and John’s) thoughts.
I'm doing IFS work with a therapist... lit title! Would be nice to have Bruce Ecker to talk about Unlocking Emotional Brain and memory reconsolidation. Few points about my own experience with the flavor of IFS my therapist is doing: we do ask the parts what they feel, even where in their body, we ask them what memories they hold. I'm not very imagistic and those prompts never yield good results with me, because I tend to get into "projection mode" where my fantasy takes over which drowns oit what the parts are actually saying. The thing that works for me best is following John's Vipassana instructions (center, root, flow, focus ) to cultivate body awareness and discernment and then use these skills in therapy to detect the parts in my body. "Incantations" also work for the parts to show up.
Thank you for this conversation! I love a good John Vervaeke podcast, and appreciate all your work. I was surprised to hear you discussing EFT in the context of IFS. I have practiced EFT for years, but this my first real introduction to IFS. The experience you guys describe with regard to the IFS exercises sounds very similar to the practice in a book called The Presence Process by Michael Brown. It is a practice of placing attention on emotions and triggering elements, feeling them in the body, using the breath to remain present and allowing it to be, without judgment. The process allows these ‘parts’ to become integrated into the self, so that these parts no longer rule over you, but you gain the ability, through the integration, to take responsibility for the quality of your own experience, and the way you respond to life. I have experienced profound change and personal peace from using that process, and I’m excited to learn more about IFS and see how it could play together with the tools I have gained from the Presence Process.
So glad to see this discussion. I’m currently reading Jung’s Personality Types and have friends trying to pull me into IFS… but I was getting confused by the conflicting descriptive language. It’s very helpful to hear that you need to just look past the descriptive language and just go into the practice.
I can't believe my luck seeing IFS as topic on John's channel! Just yesterday I got back to Interviews with Richard Scwartz and was having conversations with my parts yesterday and this morning. So helpfull.
These are two professionals exemplifying c.o.p for audience learning too 😍 wow. Every first year student should be taking notes from this to improve and extend professional dialogue in the workplace.
God bless you, John and Seth. I briefly studied IFS in college and was really put off because (a) I felt the theoretical model was lacking, and (b) Schwartz seemed to be drawing on Jungian constructs without giving his work due notice. This dialogue has illuminated why I felt that way and now I'm curious to learn more about IFS and perhaps how I can integrate it into my clinical practice.
Yes, that one is great. Also Richard's session with Tim Ferriss is very good - both interviews have a short live demo of an IFS conversation. Powerful stuff.
Thank you for the video!! I tried to imitate the practice based on my understanding of Gendlin's focusing and the live demonstration at the end, and got an emotional response out of myself. I'll find out if what I did was effective!
To add to the point on relevance realization based on my own limited experience with practicing IFS: Each part carries with it a charged salience landscape, and IFS helps translate/simplify that landscape into a person. When you have an agapic relationship with this "person", you turn it to reflect on salience versus relevance. Whatever this charged salience landscape is looking for begins to search for what it really requires, not just what is salient. Though, I find it concerning that the IFS "self" is the Jungian ego. This really weakens IFS for me. The way I have personally experienced the so called "Self" is as this subtle realization that there is more to me than I can ever know. Would really appreciate some more input on this!
Upon further reflection, I'd say in order to find a good way to "self" without making it into a "thing" is to perform IFS in the context of a tradition, and while aspiring towards a sage. Parts are like pieces of a puzzle, and one may need a template or a map as a reference as to how they should fit together. What do you think?
Schwarz 's book for couples therapy "You Are The One You've Been Waiting For" mentions attachment styles explicitly and says that exiles exhibit these.
John, check out ‘The Others Within Us - IFS, Porous Mind, and Spirit Possesion’ by Robert Falconer. Foreword by Dick Schwartz. It’s clear to me that ‘guides’ and other such encounters aren’t viewed as parts of the system, but exist in the ‘collective’ in Jungian terms, or ‘transliminal’ which is a term proposed in the book. It’s also clear to me that experiences like yours with Hermes have been known to Schwartz and others for decades but the whole thing with ‘facing academia’ like you discussed here prevented then from speaking more openly about it since they didn’t want IFS to be discredited.
Thank you for this wonderful conversation. I'd love the hear you speak to or about Bruce Ecker and his work on memory reconsolidation. He talks about memory reconsolidation as the neurobiological mechanism for why IFS, AEDP, EFT, somatic experiencing etc. work so well to bring about transformational change.
What I almost always think is that Dr.Vervaeke and his guests are great people to concern people's life, so I explain some kind of meaning crisis like replies as below. In many cases, this kind of explanation is received by differently, but I have respect for Dr.Vervaeke and his guests. People simply think when they decide or understand, it is absolutely understandable to other people, but it is not. The case of emotional wreckage for example needs very detailed explanations when it is not only personal matter (e.g. broadcast) and some symbolic events came into the explanator's life. I think psychotheraphists are great people. They have to respect therepy and in English, there would be some kind of falling back to certain meaning crisis, I think they also concern this to understand clients. In many cases, especially in Korea, some people who have inclusive mind also say "fight them not to be naive" but, I think "fight" makes problem worsened. I have been experiencing life difficulties more than 30 years and recent years too and today too, the reply I put at the below is exactly how it is. The only part of my experiences.
John, when you were talking about the pragmatic aspects of language use in IFS, but it doesn't describe how things actually work, it sounded similar to language cues in coaching athletics. In the latter you do not want to describe how it works, you want a cue that enables the athlete to make the correct movement.
“The language of training not the language of explaining” yep. So much confusion around that in so many areas eh?!? And then there is the recent fad of being “mutiple identity systems” who call each other “plurals”, have one-up-manship battles about how “dissociated their alters are”, and call everyone else “singlets”. These people have even butchered the Tibetan concept of Tulpas! Parts work is incredibly powerful and beautiful and equally prone to bullshit-ization in our nuts digital world. 🥴🥴🥴 Thanks for a lovely talk. 🙏🏽❤️
It is interesting to hear you talk about this! It would be so cool to contribute to this kind of conversation .. I appreciate that you found someone you can converse with in this way - where your articulation is being sounded. ❤ keep growing 🌻 bloom in grace ✨️ may you find that wonderful place of still
As a Sufi Poet said, "you can't reason your way to God". At some point we must depart from rigid frameworks, rationality and intellect. IFS alongside micro dosing has proved extremely effective for me
46:39 probably the language of "The Self" and naming that as a kind of "True Self" came from the cathartic moment between Schwartz and his eating disorder clients when they were able to not only disavow their "disordered part," but in a sense, identify with something else with authority and trust. In a way, the problem is always presented as oneself pitted against a disordered part. What seems to move in the agapic transformative dimension requires a "reparenting" of oneself to an authoritative "The Self," even if that move will ultimately prove to be a ladder that gets kicked down as one approaches normative "mental health."
59:35 The freaky question isn't if these "parts" are truly autonomous, since they resemble us so precisely. The freaky question is if we are merely a "part" of the world at large. If the answer to the 2nd question is yes, then we better damn well hope the answer the 1st question is also a yes.
Wow! Wonderful and lovely. Thank you so much for having these dialogues. Very much looking forward to the next one. Really helpful in developing as a therapist, and helps in understanding "the self" and its "psychic energies".
I wonder, is CBT in contradiction to the psychoanalytic model? because, if in CBT thoughts are just something to be moved around and manipulated, that sounds to me like a way of suppressing thoughts and emotions by manipulation, which would make you "sicker" according to the psychoanalytic model.
Yes, to me CBT is a tool that can be useful AFTER some work was done on understanding deeper stuff. And honestly, compared with IFS it feels like CBT is a blunt and even sometimes cruel instrument. Cruel towards all those thoughts, needs, wishes that just get silenced and reframed away.
As a final comment, I'd like somebody to invent a modality where the therapy incorporates any kind of movement client feels like doing to get his point across. Maybe even expand IFS. I often feel fidgety just sitting there in a chair, I wanna walk around and use hand gestures. I often get the feeling the therapy would work better if we were in a calm natural setting somewhere and moved and talked freely without constraints of the parts language. The parts language is sometimes useful sometimes it gets in the way for me and feels shoehorny, especially when it comes to establishing first contact with the part. See the trouble is, certain parts don't show up unless you're in the right situation. My contention is that if IFS is done in a "lab"/"home" setting then only certain set of parts can show up. So there is a disconnect: you do IFS in a "lab", but live in a varied world environment.
About your last comment on therapy: It seems like one major breakthrough is analogically transferring the skills and attitudes cultivated in a therapeutic relationship or set of practices into new domains (settings and relationships).
I don't understand why would anybody think that a therapeutic technique is somehow descriptive of the mind. It never occurred to me to tink that. I always think of therapy as an helpful input (dance) that will get you to a better place - not teach you about the nature of the mind.
You men are reducing the concept of Self. Perhaps you can’t get your egos to step aside, I feel that Self is similar to jungisn idea of Self. You are wrong. You do not really understand the model. Your 43:14 murkiness is a part. Socrates is irrelevant. You obviously need to ask your academic part to relax and quit analyzing the model.
10/10 Best of the Best of the Internet.
Thank you John and Seth for this excellent conversation! As someone who has been learning from you for some time, John -- and who delights in your several long-form "hemispheric laterality and dual attention" dialogues with Iain McGilchrist -- I listened attentively as you and Seth explored and unpacked IFS in the broader contexts of Jung, and of EFT. I hung on each idea y'all explored, and wondered how Iain might add his perspective to this confluence.
I have been actively learning from Richard Schwartz and using IFS for several years, as an IFS-skilled coach (not as a therapist). It might be helpful to mention the four primary objectives of IFS: Liberate burdened parts; Restore Trust with Self; Reharmonize the inner system; (and) Develop Self-leadership, both internally and externally. Also, while the work to develop reliable access to "Self" was among the most challenging aspects of developing my IFS skills, it is profoundly rewarding for me in my profession, and also in my everyday life as a person, a spouse, and a father!
While it won't fit your academic rigor, John, here's one of the metaphors I use to convey a sense for the IFS "Self": Self is akin to a "force" (i.e. an energy field) that is both transparent and which also, paradoxically, casts a shadow. (Not a Jungian shadow; just a shadow.) It is the pure and untarnished force that animated me at the moment of my conception, which set me apart from a microscopic pile of inert chemicals, and which continues to animate each of the trillions of autonomous cells that comprise this iteration of "me".
To commenter @eqapo... You mentioned the recent interview that Dick Schwartz did on Scott Barry Kaufman's Psychology Podcast. Agreed! I found that conversation to be useful and nuanced, although its apparent simplicity might be deceptive for folks who are new to IFS. (Here's the link: ua-cam.com/video/kmpE8gWzH2M/v-deo.html)
And here's a great conversation Dick did with Sam Stern from the Esalen Institute in California. This was posted recently on YT, but it was originally recorded a little while ago. (Link: ua-cam.com/video/6MesvXKa8Rg/v-deo.html) For anyone who is familiar with the book "No Bad Parts", you will recognize one of the transcripts in the book as being segments from that interview. Listening to the actual recording is both touching and inspiring. Kudos to Sam and his "inner team" (system) for his collective willingness to participate in such a beautiful and candid, open and curious, and vulnerable way.
On this, the 40th anniversary of Internal Family Systems, I'm grateful for IFS and for the vast knowledge Dr. Richard Schwartz has imparted to the world through the many books he has authored and co-authored, the formal trainings for IFS, the interviews he has graciously given, and his openness to having others promote and enhance the IFS model and protocol. I for one continue to grow in the company of this kind, compassionate, Self-aware, and Self-giving leader.
Kind and respectful regards to you, John and Seth, and to the Vervaeke audience,
- Richard
"Tomorrow's mastery begins with mental calm today."
Already posted these notes to twitter, but just in case you don’t check it:
By the sound of it, you probably were blended when you had that socratic dialog with your parts (which is not any kind of failure). Parts can also be curious, the 8 Cs are a simplified shorthand for the qualities that Self brings to relationship. The curiosity you're describing sounds like an intellectual one, while the curiosity of Self is in my experience more in-line with something like awe or wonder, a desire to know on a connective level. A second diagnostic question you could ask to check for 'Self-like parts' (what I call Self-ing Protectors) would be 'Can you be with this part exactly as it is, without needing to change it?' Self-ing parts cannot honestly answer 'yes' to that question.
Seth does an excellent job of articulating the origins of IFS and how it works, though I do take some issue with his description of “pulling apart.” The family, or the inner-family, is already fragmented. The work we do with IFS is integration and harmonization, we're not pulling things apart. It's also too (for lack of a better word) violent for me. We can't force parts to separate or to do anything, it always requires their consent. We're facilitating a dialog, not pulling something apart or dissecting it.
Feeling like a mechanic. There is a method to walking, but the method is secondary to the journey it takes you on. If it feels mechanistic, that's in part because you're still at the surface level relationship with parts. Those "diagnostic questions" are ice-breakers - they're easy surface-level questions we ask to get to know a part at the early stage of the relationship, just like with (most) people.
On Self being the parent who can help the part regulate: yep, that is written down. IFS is often referred to as attachment therapy taken inside.
Guides are not parts, they are considered external energies that come into the system from elsewhere, though they may stick around or have been there for a long time. They're...non-natives.
Self does not have a stable location anywhere. Dissociation can completely take us out of our body, Dick would say Self is being taken out of the body.
Thank you for these excellent critiques!
@@Sethwallison Thank you for reading them, I really enjoyed this conversation! Also my username is a website, a massive free resource largely grounded in IFS, if you’d like to check it out. I’d love to get your (and John’s) thoughts.
I'm doing IFS work with a therapist... lit title!
Would be nice to have Bruce Ecker to talk about Unlocking Emotional Brain and memory reconsolidation.
Few points about my own experience with the flavor of IFS my therapist is doing: we do ask the parts what they feel, even where in their body, we ask them what memories they hold. I'm not very imagistic and those prompts never yield good results with me, because I tend to get into "projection mode" where my fantasy takes over which drowns oit what the parts are actually saying. The thing that works for me best is following John's Vipassana instructions (center, root, flow, focus ) to cultivate body awareness and discernment and then use these skills in therapy to detect the parts in my body. "Incantations" also work for the parts to show up.
Thanks for sharing!
Can you give an example of incantations?
Thank you for this conversation! I love a good John Vervaeke podcast, and appreciate all your work. I was surprised to hear you discussing EFT in the context of IFS. I have practiced EFT for years, but this my first real introduction to IFS. The experience you guys describe with regard to the IFS exercises sounds very similar to the practice in a book called The Presence Process by Michael Brown. It is a practice of placing attention on emotions and triggering elements, feeling them in the body, using the breath to remain present and allowing it to be, without judgment. The process allows these ‘parts’ to become integrated into the self, so that these parts no longer rule over you, but you gain the ability, through the integration, to take responsibility for the quality of your own experience, and the way you respond to life. I have experienced profound change and personal peace from using that process, and I’m excited to learn more about IFS and see how it could play together with the tools I have gained from the Presence Process.
Unbelievably great episode. IFS just got a whole lot more interesting to me. Thanks you John!
So glad to see this discussion. I’m currently reading Jung’s Personality Types and have friends trying to pull me into IFS… but I was getting confused by the conflicting descriptive language. It’s very helpful to hear that you need to just look past the descriptive language and just go into the practice.
I can't believe my luck seeing IFS as topic on John's channel! Just yesterday I got back to Interviews with Richard Scwartz and was having conversations with my parts yesterday and this morning. So helpfull.
Came here to post this! ✅
These are two professionals exemplifying c.o.p for audience learning too 😍 wow. Every first year student should be taking notes from this to improve and extend professional dialogue in the workplace.
God bless you, John and Seth. I briefly studied IFS in college and was really put off because (a) I felt the theoretical model was lacking, and (b) Schwartz seemed to be drawing on Jungian constructs without giving his work due notice. This dialogue has illuminated why I felt that way and now I'm curious to learn more about IFS and perhaps how I can integrate it into my clinical practice.
As the window opens, a fresh new breeze refreshes the mind.
Thank you, Gentlemen
Scott Barry Kaufman just published his interview with Richard Schwartz on his Psychology Podcast. I'd recommend checking that out right after!
Yes, that one is great. Also Richard's session with Tim Ferriss is very good - both interviews have a short live demo of an IFS conversation. Powerful stuff.
Thank you for the video!! I tried to imitate the practice based on my understanding of Gendlin's focusing and the live demonstration at the end, and got an emotional response out of myself. I'll find out if what I did was effective!
@@MiPo3333 he also does a brief session with Rich Roll on his podcast, all great insights into the practice!
Seth is very engaging. Really enjoyed this.
To add to the point on relevance realization based on my own limited experience with practicing IFS: Each part carries with it a charged salience landscape, and IFS helps translate/simplify that landscape into a person. When you have an agapic relationship with this "person", you turn it to reflect on salience versus relevance. Whatever this charged salience landscape is looking for begins to search for what it really requires, not just what is salient.
Though, I find it concerning that the IFS "self" is the Jungian ego. This really weakens IFS for me. The way I have personally experienced the so called "Self" is as this subtle realization that there is more to me than I can ever know. Would really appreciate some more input on this!
Absolutely agree that each part has its own salience landscape :)
Upon further reflection, I'd say in order to find a good way to "self" without making it into a "thing" is to perform IFS in the context of a tradition, and while aspiring towards a sage. Parts are like pieces of a puzzle, and one may need a template or a map as a reference as to how they should fit together. What do you think?
Schwarz 's book for couples therapy "You Are The One You've Been Waiting For" mentions attachment styles explicitly and says that exiles exhibit these.
Stunning conversation
John, check out ‘The Others Within Us - IFS, Porous Mind, and Spirit Possesion’ by Robert Falconer. Foreword by Dick Schwartz. It’s clear to me that ‘guides’ and other such encounters aren’t viewed as parts of the system, but exist in the ‘collective’ in Jungian terms, or ‘transliminal’ which is a term proposed in the book. It’s also clear to me that experiences like yours with Hermes have been known to Schwartz and others for decades but the whole thing with ‘facing academia’ like you discussed here prevented then from speaking more openly about it since they didn’t want IFS to be discredited.
Logos! 🔥 Thank you both! Keep up the great work! I'm going to learn more about this 🙏🏼
Thank you for this wonderful conversation. I'd love the hear you speak to or about Bruce Ecker and his work on memory reconsolidation. He talks about memory reconsolidation as the neurobiological mechanism for why IFS, AEDP, EFT, somatic experiencing etc. work so well to bring about transformational change.
Seth should just rewrite all the books on IFS. These explanations are phenomenal(in both senses of the word)
❤ finally 😅 Glad for you, John ❤ God bless you
Yeeeess... Please more of this...
What I almost always think is that Dr.Vervaeke and his guests are great people to concern people's life, so I explain some kind of meaning crisis like replies as below. In many cases, this kind of explanation is received by differently, but I have respect for Dr.Vervaeke and his guests. People simply think when they decide or understand, it is absolutely understandable to other people, but it is not. The case of emotional wreckage for example needs very detailed explanations when it is not only personal matter (e.g. broadcast) and some symbolic events came into the explanator's life.
I think psychotheraphists are great people. They have to respect therepy and in English, there would be some kind of falling back to certain meaning crisis, I think they also concern this to understand clients.
In many cases, especially in Korea, some people who have inclusive mind also say "fight them not to be naive" but, I think "fight" makes problem worsened.
I have been experiencing life difficulties more than 30 years and recent years too and today too, the reply I put at the below is exactly how it is. The only part of my experiences.
Really great conversation . I've just started IFS and it's very revealing .
John, when you were talking about the pragmatic aspects of language use in IFS, but it doesn't describe how things actually work, it sounded similar to language cues in coaching athletics. In the latter you do not want to describe how it works, you want a cue that enables the athlete to make the correct movement.
Looking forward to this one!
“The language of training not the language of explaining” yep. So much confusion around that in so many areas eh?!? And then there is the recent fad of being “mutiple identity systems” who call each other “plurals”, have one-up-manship battles about how “dissociated their alters are”, and call everyone else “singlets”. These people have even butchered the Tibetan concept of Tulpas!
Parts work is incredibly powerful and beautiful and equally prone to bullshit-ization in our nuts digital world. 🥴🥴🥴
Thanks for a lovely talk. 🙏🏽❤️
Would love to hear a discussion with all three of you. Dick has been on many podcasts so I'm sure he would have a conversation with you.
It is interesting to hear you talk about this! It would be so cool to contribute to this kind of conversation .. I appreciate that you found someone you can converse with in this way - where your articulation is being sounded. ❤ keep growing 🌻 bloom in grace ✨️ may you find that wonderful place of still
As a Sufi Poet said, "you can't reason your way to God". At some point we must depart from rigid frameworks, rationality and intellect. IFS alongside micro dosing has proved extremely effective for me
Maybe you could team up with Schwarz @John??? and getting 'the' book out? (practice AND theory together)
So he's saying an archetype is like a variable? I was confused by this part. 14:00
46:39 probably the language of "The Self" and naming that as a kind of "True Self" came from the cathartic moment between Schwartz and his eating disorder clients when they were able to not only disavow their "disordered part," but in a sense, identify with something else with authority and trust. In a way, the problem is always presented as oneself pitted against a disordered part. What seems to move in the agapic transformative dimension requires a "reparenting" of oneself to an authoritative "The Self," even if that move will ultimately prove to be a ladder that gets kicked down as one approaches normative "mental health."
Oooh, Daniel Thorson sent this to me, excited to dive in.
59:35 The freaky question isn't if these "parts" are truly autonomous, since they resemble us so precisely. The freaky question is if we are merely a "part" of the world at large. If the answer to the 2nd question is yes, then we better damn well hope the answer the 1st question is also a yes.
John should look into process-oriented psychology or process work by Arnold Mindell.
This is beyond amazing ❤❤❤ easily one of the very top discussions i've seen ❤❤❤ thank you both for everything you do for us.
Ifs need more john vervaeke
Wow! Wonderful and lovely. Thank you so much for having these dialogues. Very much looking forward to the next one. Really helpful in developing as a therapist, and helps in understanding "the self" and its "psychic energies".
Great opponent processing guys
I wonder, is CBT in contradiction to the psychoanalytic model? because, if in CBT thoughts are just something to be moved around and manipulated, that sounds to me like a way of suppressing thoughts and emotions by manipulation, which would make you "sicker" according to the psychoanalytic model.
Yes, to me CBT is a tool that can be useful AFTER some work was done on understanding deeper stuff. And honestly, compared with IFS it feels like CBT is a blunt and even sometimes cruel instrument. Cruel towards all those thoughts, needs, wishes that just get silenced and reframed away.
As a final comment, I'd like somebody to invent a modality where the therapy incorporates any kind of movement client feels like doing to get his point across. Maybe even expand IFS. I often feel fidgety just sitting there in a chair, I wanna walk around and use hand gestures. I often get the feeling the therapy would work better if we were in a calm natural setting somewhere and moved and talked freely without constraints of the parts language. The parts language is sometimes useful sometimes it gets in the way for me and feels shoehorny, especially when it comes to establishing first contact with the part.
See the trouble is, certain parts don't show up unless you're in the right situation. My contention is that if IFS is done in a "lab"/"home" setting then only certain set of parts can show up. So there is a disconnect: you do IFS in a "lab", but live in a varied world environment.
About your last comment on therapy:
It seems like one major breakthrough is analogically transferring the skills and attitudes cultivated in a therapeutic relationship or set of practices into new domains (settings and relationships).
Commenting on as many videos for algorithm serving
Finally!
Brilliant.
I don't understand why would anybody think that a therapeutic technique is somehow descriptive of the mind. It never occurred to me to tink that. I always think of therapy as an helpful input (dance) that will get you to a better place - not teach you about the nature of the mind.
🌞
Isn’t this a little like TA
I’m a internal kung fu guy and Nei gong practitioner, when you wrote internal faimly I thought the arts I practice 😂
is it the unconscious mind or the subconscious mind that Jung proposed? this is the confusion.
💪💪💪💪😎 🙏
Great, this merely expresses the work required of democracy.
Hermes emerges as internally external.
You men are reducing the concept of Self. Perhaps you can’t get your egos to step aside, I feel that Self is similar to jungisn idea of Self. You are wrong. You do not really understand the model. Your 43:14 murkiness is a part. Socrates is irrelevant. You obviously need to ask your academic part to relax and quit analyzing the model.