Philosophical counselling

[Anthony Simon]

(Also real cupcakes to anyone in London, UK, willing to meet up and discuss it.)

Sorry, Letitia, it's too much right now (personal reasons).

[Letitia_Jolie_GG]

Fair enough, no pressure Feel free to keep giving your input online.

[Paulette]

Hi Letitia,

I've read your initial post and the following ones in this thread several times since you started it off, and haven't known quite where to jump in. I still don't, but here goes anyway.

I believe "definition" is much too loosely used. We can be defined by certain concretely and physically verifiable things (male, 45 years old, blonde, an occasional cross dresser, etc.) Everything else is an interpretation of these and other things rather than the things themselves.

Interpretations consist of speculation: because we can never truly know; and rationalization: because we tend to hang on to speculations that are more comforting and less frightening to us than those that are not - in other words, we lie to ourselves to create the image and history of ourselves that we want to have.

Counseling that does not distinguish among and between these categories would, I think, tend to become a muddle and less than useful. On the other hand, a muddle is still a pattern and pattern recognition and manipulation can be useful, so even clients and counselors who misinterpret their own or each others terms can find positive value in them that may help to order and ease their lives. (And yes, I believe that counselors are changed by their clients just as teachers learn from their students.)

I'm not sure my thoughts clarify anything or will be at all useful. They certainly adhere more to the "hard science" view than to the "soft" one. So now I'll go read your draft again and see if I can continue this with some examples.

Best wishes on a difficult endeavor.

[Paulette]

The link to your draft doesn't work for me. Have you replaced or removed it?