Svaki put me iznenadi podudarnost rezultata neuroznanstvenih istraživanja s teorijom na kojoj se temelji geštaltistički psihoterapijski pristup.
Ja Geštalt terapiju vidim kao poziv na aktivno istraživanje vlastite svjesnosti i iskustva komuniciranja selfa i okoline s ciljem postizanja mogućnosti svjesnog izbora i odgovornosti za način na koji živimo taj međuodnos koji čini cjelinu naše stvarnosti.
Uvijek su mi se sviđale ove dvije geštaltističke definicije zdravlja:
Definition of Health I: The Good Gestalt as Polarity
The good Gestalt describes a perceptual field organized with clarity and good form. A well-formed figure clearly stands out against a broader and less distinct background. The relation between that which stands out (figure) and the context (ground) is meaning. In the good Gestalt the meaning is clear. The good Gestalt gives a content-free definition of health.
In health, the figure changes as needed, that is, it shifts to another focus when the need is met or superseded by a more urgent need. It does not change so rapidly as to prevent satisfaction (as in hysteria) or so slowly that new figures have no room to assume organismic dominance (as in compulsivity). When figure and ground are dichotomized, one is left with a figure out of context or a context without focus (F. Perls et al., 1951). In health, awareness accurately represents the dominant need of the whole field. Need is a function of external factors (physical structure of the field, political activity, acts of nature, and so on) and internal factors (hunger, fatigue, interest, past experience, and so forth).
Definition of Health II: The Polarity of Creative Adjustment
The Gestalt therapy concept of healthy functioning includes creative adjustment. A psychotherapy that only helps patients adjust creates conformity and stereotypy. A psychotherapy that only led people to impose themselves on the world without considering others would engender pathological narcissism and a world-denying realization of self isolated from the world.
A person who shows creative interaction takes responsibility for the ecological balance between self and surroundings.
This is the theoretical context (F. Perls et al., 1951) within which some seemingly individualistic and even anarchistic statements of Gestalt therapy are most accurately considered. The individual and environment form a polarity. The choice is not between the individual and society, but between organismic and arbitrary regulation.
(iz Gary Yontef, Ph.D., Awareness, Dialogue, and Process, 1993, http://www.gestalt.org/yontef.htm )
Iako se geštaltistička i neuroznanstvena terminologija razlikuju, meni temeljni koncepti djeluju vrlo sličnima, a i zgodne fraze poput Perlsovog “mindfuckinga” ili Sethove “reality is controlled halucination” uvijek jednako efikasno izazovu smijeh i oduševljenje publike.
Ono što, naravno, uvijek postoji kao mogućnost je da je moj mozak povezao dvije naizgled povezive stvari 🙂
Bilo kako bilo, u toj mojoj stvarnosti one su povezane, a vi prosudite sami za sebe.
B. Tomljenović