Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Greg I didn't receive any mail on the public ACT list serve from a therapist questioning ACT. Can you clarify? Ron Leifer I would like to make a request to any and all therapists out there who choose to question ACT, and it's flaws or short comings. Please take it elsewhere!There is an ACT listserv setup for therapists to discuss such things, and I believe that is where it should be taken. To discuss, and argue on a public listserv, where there are new folks who can become very confused, and maybe put off by all of the questions is very irresponsible. Please have some professional curtousy.Greg P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Greg I don't know if your request is valid or not. Is it an official policy? My problem is that I didn't receive the e mail you seem to be citing. Can you pass it on to me? Thanks. Ron Leifer There is no real need to clarify or point fingers. I am simply making a request. If I misread something, that is fine, the request is still valid.Greg P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 There is no real need to clarify or point fingers. I am simply making a request. If I misread something, that is fine, the request is still valid. Greg P > > > Greg > > I didn't receive any mail on the public ACT list serve from a therapist > questioning ACT. > Can you clarify? > > Ron Leifer > > > In a message dated 6/5/2006 3:20:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > gregpeery@... writes: > > I would like to make a request to any and all therapists out there who > choose to question ACT, and it's flaws or short comings. > > Please take it elsewhere! > > There is an ACT listserv setup for therapists to discuss such things, > and I believe that is where it should be taken. To discuss, and argue > on a public listserv, where there are new folks who can become very > confused, and maybe put off by all of the questions is very > irresponsible. > > Please have some professional curtousy. > > Greg P > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 ( I bought the ACT book(s) because I wanted to work the workbook around my own difficulties. I'm also a therapist, as I mentioned, and am excited about it from a practice standpoint. So I'm on both lists. As both a member of the public and a therapist, I see nothing "unprofessional" about responding openly and freely here to issues that people are having with the values section, or any other aspect of ACT. I certainly wouldn't discourage a client of mine from reading about or discussing or criticizing any approach that I use, in any forum, or shield them from controversy about it. (This is not a religion, it's an evolving theory and practice model. As such, it's undoubtedly imperfect and under constant revision and review, and Steve is very open and candid about it being a work in progress.) Nor would I want to infantilize them by speaking as though they were children who might be "confused" by open dialogue. My own posts were in response to difficulties that others were noting as they began the values section. I encountered the same problems, and I speculated about that. Greg and I also didn't understand the values section in the same way, but then again, neither did persons who are not students or practitioners of psychotherapy. We are all the same, folks: the people on the "other" side have controversies and questions, also. I certainly never felt any "heat" toward Greg; I thought it an interesting enough discussion, and in fact others responded with interest and ideas of their own. Maybe the reason why a lot of people get hung up in the values section has to do with something ineffective in the model; perhaps it is their own resistance or misunderstanding. In either case, anyone who is actually working the book should feel free to comfortably express their own way of understanding it, or misunderstanding it, or even critiquing it and revising it in a way that works for them. It doesn't "belong" to the ACT experts; once published, it belongs to all of us. This, I think, holds true not just for a psychotherapy model, but for any idea in any genuinely open dialogue. Therapists are not big experts "up there"; they are just as bewildered and brilliant and confused and crystal clear as the rest of the population. And should be treated as such. I don't like therapies or trust that rely on a big power/knowledge differential, and l don't think that's the idea here at all. It is fine to doubt your therapist. Given the state of the mental health system currently, it might be imperative. My sense was, and is, that a number of equals were discussing their experience and their "take" on the material -- and that this is not only valid, but important. I think that people in this forum often have terrific insights and ideas, and these inform my own exploration of this very rich model. Certainly people who are confused by the discussion need to decide for themselves what's useful and what's not. This was posted "over there" very recently; nobody got in a lather. It's something worth discussing in both forums, and from any level of understanding:"Keep in mind that while it overlaps, psychological value (values compass) is not the same as ethical value. Certainly one's moral code plays a crucial role in developing one's valued ends; but morality includes many issues beyond the direct interest of RFT/ACT, e.g. evaluation of the good of society as a whole, human rights, mediating differences between different people's values, etc. The Time magazine reporter asked Steve an obvious question: Suppose a client's values aren't "moral"; Steve noted he didn't have a good answer. (Of course, the same objection applies to Sartre and Aristotle.) I'll bet I'm not alone in having a hunch in the end there is no contradiction between morality proper and ACT, but there is work to be done." That's what I was thinking about when i started writing a post that I've interrupted in order to respond here. (Which absolutely no one will feel compelled to read, I'm sure. And to which anyone who is interested should feel perfectly free to respond from within their own experience. Yes?") There is no real need to clarify or point fingers. I am simply making a request. If I misread something, that is fine, the request is still valid. Greg P > > > Greg > > I didn't receive any mail on the public ACT list serve from a therapist > questioning ACT. > Can you clarify? > > Ron Leifer > > > > > I would like to make a request to any and all therapists out there who > choose to question ACT, and it's flaws or short comings. > > Please take it elsewhere! > > There is an ACT listserv setup for therapists to discuss such things, > and I believe that is where it should be taken. To discuss, and argue > on a public listserv, where there are new folks who can become very > confused, and maybe put off by all of the questions is very > irresponsible. > > Please have some professional curtousy. > > Greg P > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Begin forwarded message:Date: June 5, 2006 8:35:33 PM EDTTo: ACT_for_the_Public Subject: Re: Re: Request ( I bought the ACT book(s) because I wanted to work the workbook around my own difficulties. I'm also a therapist, as I mentioned, and am excited about it from a practice standpoint. So I'm on both lists. As both a member of the public and a therapist, I see nothing "unprofessional" about responding openly and freely here to issues that people are having with the values section, or any other aspect of ACT. I certainly wouldn't discourage a client of mine from reading about or discussing or criticizing any approach that I use, in any forum, or shield them from controversy about it. (This is not a religion, it's an evolving theory and practice model. As such, it's undoubtedly imperfect and under constant revision and review, and Steve is very open and candid about it being a work in progress.) Nor would I want to infantilize them by speaking as though they were children who might be "confused" by open dialogue. My own posts were in response to difficulties that others were noting as they began the values section. I encountered the same problems, and I speculated about that. Greg and I also didn't understand the values section in the same way, but then again, neither did persons who are not students or practitioners of psychotherapy. We are all the same, folks: the people on the "other" side have controversies and questions, also. I certainly never felt any "heat" toward Greg; I thought it an interesting enough discussion, and in fact others responded with interest and ideas of their own. Maybe the reason why a lot of people get hung up in the values section has to do with something ineffective in the model; perhaps it is their own resistance or misunderstanding. In either case, anyone who is actually working the book should feel free to comfortably express their own way of understanding it, or misunderstanding it, or even critiquing it and revising it in a way that works for them. It doesn't "belong" to the ACT experts; once published, it belongs to all of us. This, I think, holds true not just for a psychotherapy model, but for any idea in any genuinely open dialogue. Therapists are not big experts "up there"; they are just as bewildered and brilliant and confused and crystal clear as the rest of the population. And should be treated as such. I don't like therapies or trust that rely on a big power/knowledge differential, and l don't think that's the idea here at all. It is fine to doubt your therapist. Given the state of the mental health system currently, it might be imperative. My sense was, and is, that a number of equals were discussing their experience and their "take" on the material -- and that this is not only valid, but important. I think that people in this forum often have terrific insights and ideas, and these inform my own exploration of this very rich model. Certainly people who are confused by the discussion need to decide for themselves what's useful and what's not. This was posted "over there" very recently; nobody got in a lather. It's something worth discussing in both forums, and from any level of understanding:"Keep in mind that while it overlaps, psychological value (values compass) is not the same as ethical value. Certainly one's moral code plays a crucial role in developing one's valued ends; but morality includes many issues beyond the direct interest of RFT/ACT, e.g. evaluation of the good of society as a whole, human rights, mediating differences between different people's values, etc. The Time magazine reporter asked Steve an obvious question: Suppose a client's values aren't "moral"; Steve noted he didn't have a good answer. (Of course, the same objection applies to Sartre and Aristotle.) I'll bet I'm not alone in having a hunch in the end there is no contradiction between morality proper and ACT, but there is work to be done." That's what I was thinking about when i started writing a post that I've interrupted in order to respond here. (Which absolutely no one will feel compelled to read, I'm sure. And to which anyone who is interested should feel perfectly free to respond from within their own experience. Yes?") There is no real need to clarify or point fingers. I am simply making a request. If I misread something, that is fine, the request is still valid. Greg P > > > Greg > > I didn't receive any mail on the public ACT list serve from a therapist > questioning ACT. > Can you clarify? > > Ron Leifer > > > > > I would like to make a request to any and all therapists out there who > choose to question ACT, and it's flaws or short comings. > > Please take it elsewhere! > > There is an ACT listserv setup for therapists to discuss such things, > and I believe that is where it should be taken. To discuss, and argue > on a public listserv, where there are new folks who can become very > confused, and maybe put off by all of the questions is very > irresponsible. > > Please have some professional curtousy. > > Greg P > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 A member wrote: "For those of us that have been around awhile it is a good discussion,I am just concerned someone new may look at it and wonder the samething. I would just hate to think someone might not get the help theyneed. " It's been my experience that when I worry about others not getting what they need, then I have stopped view them like adults with free-will and the ability to think and have begun to view them as ignorant and unable to make rational decisions. As a new kid who's been lurking, I find all discussion interesting. If I am unwilling to shift thru things and decide for myself, then perhaps I'm not at the point where I'd be willing to learn much at all. Just my $.02 worth. Thanks, Cate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Wow, This was fastinating. As I read Bekka's reply, the things that went through my mind. I became angry, after all how could anyone dispute such a simple request. I was only trying to protect people. That's my responsibility isn't it? Then the thought came to me. Why do I need to protect people? That thought hit me like a ton of bricks. Why? Because that's what I always do. I will lie, decieve, withhold, avoid if it means protecting someone from possibly getting hurt. It's what I always have done. But why, well I had to go and sit on that one, and boy what I came up with. Imagine a 12 year old boy watching as he thinks his Mother is about to commit suicide, and it was all because of something he told her. So giving information = Pain. Does this mean that it really isn't my job to protect people from their pain. Is this something my mind came up with to really protect me from pain. This is really heavy duty stuff and will take awhile to process. I do want to thank Bekka for telling it like it is. I would also like to appologize if I offended anyone. That was not my meaning at all. Time to start taking care of that 12 year old boy and teach him that he is not responsible for causing other people pain. Peace to all, Greg P > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > I didn't receive any mail on the public ACT list serve from a > > therapist > > > questioning ACT. > > > Can you clarify? > > > > > > Ron Leifer > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/5/2006 3:20:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > > > gregpeery@ writes: > > > > > > I would like to make a request to any and all therapists out there > > who > > > choose to question ACT, and it's flaws or short comings. > > > > > > Please take it elsewhere! > > > > > > There is an ACT listserv setup for therapists to discuss such > > things, > > > and I believe that is where it should be taken. To discuss, and > > argue > > > on a public listserv, where there are new folks who can become > > very > > > confused, and maybe put off by all of the questions is very > > > irresponsible. > > > > > > Please have some professional curtousy. > > > > > > Greg P > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 To everyone on the list (and greg, last but kind of first):What a beautiful, humbling and heartening batch of e-mail to come home to! The responses to Phoenix were wonderfully thoughtful, some real earthy wisdom and compassion. I'm happily undone, and can only appreciate the tenderness and openness and genuine caring and lively engagement of everyone posting here. Gassho x 3. Openings and little break-throughs. Steve, the waterfall metaphor is a beauty, very wu-wei. : ) For dang interlekchewls like me, a nice, clean cutting through a lot of syntactical muck. For intuitive - poetical types (like me also) a real clarification and help. I thank you for it.(I still won't mess with those lists any more, though, until I'm persuaded that they're the best way to get to the "core" that I really do see shimmering through. Water feels its way; it has no head. (Not like hedonistic feeling at all. Something else, another kind of intelligence.)In the water-bowl metaphor something completely unthinky discovers a way to go. There's no need to make an explicit commitment if you can really experience that metaphor -- water is already in love with gravity. We have heads, for better and worse, but I don't think we find the sort of subtle, elusive, gerund-like, beyond-implicit-evaluation, -judgement or -objective realization etc. quality of being that you mean when you say "values" by getting people to envision an ideal outcome life (the funeral bit), or asking them to grade their behavior as measured against their values on a scale of 1-10. I think we get a lot of heavy fidgeting and misunderstanding. (And i may be wrong about that in terms of real outcome altogether. I suspect that what's missing in the workbook is the artistry of a skilled and flexibly creative therapist.)The best part about the values section for me is that it's so annoyingly contradictory and seductively paradoxical and thinky and sort of elaborately and confusedly pushy that heavy mindyness just deconstructs altogether, and decides to trust some tug that feels more like being in love than figuring out what you want on your tombstone. : ) )And Greg, look at us! -- you trying to protect people who might be confused or blown off track by my comments,and what was I doing? Trying to protect people from fear of expressing righteous confusion and pain, and to to help make a space where they could express that freely without fear of questioning authority. Ha and ho. Imagine a 12 year old boy watching as he thinks his Mother is about to commit suicide, and it was all because of something he told her. So giving information = Pain.Imagine a 12 year old girl crying and shaking in her room the morningafter another afternoon and night of insane, nightmarish, drunken chaos, afraid to even come out, all because she might break the rule, and somehow destroy her parents by breaking the rule, and saying: "you were drunk".So withholding information = Pain.I'll keep my doubts about the efficacy of that tangly values section, and my healthy, questioning skepticism, and I'll try to express that mindfully: that feels vital and interested and engaged and possibly useful. ACT is a wonderful model, I think the best I've come across for years. If I didn't care about it, I'd surely not be on this list and bothering to maybe stir the waters sometimes. . : )I hope you keep your compassionate, protective intention -- unlocked from old compulsive junk. I hope I keep mine in the same way. You've reminded me to take care of that 12 year old girl, too, and to whisper something into her ear: " remember what you've learned over these many long years: we're all naked emperors to some extent, and when the stiff robes fall away from our own shoulders or from the shoulders of others, we find nothing more or less than a human being: often scared, ever sensitive, vulnerable and wounded, fundamentally good hearted, frequently misunderstood, frequently misunderstanding, and sometimes really courageous. I'd think that would have been a hard letter to write, and I thank you for it in return. Now we can skinny dip. If i get confusing, or get in your way, just splash. i expect i'll maybe splash back. but now we're people. : ) . Wow, This was fastinating. As I read Bekka's reply, the things that went through my mind. I became angry, after all how could anyone dispute such a simple request. I was only trying to protect people. That's my responsibility isn't it? Then the thought came to me. Why do I need to protect people? That thought hit me like a ton of bricks. Why? Because that's what I always do. I will lie, decieve, withhold, avoid if it means protecting someone from possibly getting hurt. It's what I always have done. But why, well I had to go and sit on that one, and boy what I came up with. Imagine a 12 year old boy watching as he thinks his Mother is about to commit suicide, and it was all because of something he told her. So giving information = Pain. Does this mean that it really isn't my job to protect people from their pain. Is this something my mind came up with to really protect me from pain. This is really heavy duty stuff and will take awhile to process. I do want to thank Bekka for telling it like it is. I would also like to appologize if I offended anyone. That was not my meaning at all. Time to start taking care of that 12 year old boy and teach him that he is not responsible for causing other people pain.Peace to all,Greg P > > >> > >> > > Greg> > >> > > I didn't receive any mail on the public ACT list serve from a> > therapist> > > questioning ACT.> > > Can you clarify?> > >> > > Ron Leifer> > >> > >> > > In a message dated 6/5/2006 3:20:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,> > > gregpeery@ writes:> > >> > > I would like to make a request to any and all therapists out there> > who> > > choose to question ACT, and it's flaws or short comings.> > >> > > Please take it elsewhere!> > >> > > There is an ACT listserv setup for therapists to discuss such> > things,> > > and I believe that is where it should be taken. To discuss, and> > argue> > > on a public listserv, where there are new folks who can become> > very> > > confused, and maybe put off by all of the questions is very> > > irresponsible.> > >> > > Please have some professional curtousy.> > >> > > Greg P> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Hello Everyone, I'm an Art Therapist working at Westchester Medical Center in the children and adolescent inpatient psychiatric units. I noticed that someone recently requested a sewing machine and there was a good response in finding one. I am looking for a potter's wheel. If anyone knows of someone who wants to get rid of one, I'd greatly appreciate it and I'll come pick it up. Thank you very much! Mac Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.