People often invite me into discussions according to the pattern: ‘For me Logosynthesis sounds like X.’
This week it was the turn for mindfulness, but it happens every week of two with X, Y or Z.
Sometimes I’m pleasantly surprised, like when Logosynthesis is compared to psychosynthesis, integrative transactional analysis, logotherapy or another X, often based on psychodynamic or humanistic psychology. Yes, there are similar elements in the completeness of the philosophy in these models, but the philosophy of Logosynthesis covers more aspects.
If people have recognised this X in Logosynthesis we often have an interesting discussion about their model, about Logosynthesis, and the application of both models in the profession. In the course of such a conversation the focus can switch to differences in techniques, the power of the word, Essence and the energy concept of Logosynthesis.
Other times I’m amused or irritated, depending on my mood, when Logosynthesis is compared to NLP, EFT, Focusing, EMDR or other groups of techniques that are designed to induce change without paying much attention to the history f symptoms. Yes, some elements in some parts of the techniques they used are similar to Logosynthesis, but an integrative view on mankind is lacking in the model discussed. Usually these models consists of a series of techniques and are primarily used in coaching.
In such a case I try to explore their own understanding X and the elements they thought they recognised in Logosynthesis. If I’m familiar with the X of my counterpart, I draw parallels between Logosynthesis techniques and the techniques used in model X. From there I will try to open a window to a broader perspective, in which psychodynamic psychology, dissociation levels, the energy concept as well as Essence and the Real Self can find a place.
Other people think that Logosynthesis is a spiritual school and that it’s most important to become enlightened. They don’t pay much attention to anything else than their own spiritual liberation, spending hours and hours to identify and resolve every trigger and every reaction, just to move to the next issue to heal.
They tend ignore that life in this world is there to be lived. It’s the challenge of living in the physical with the help of the mental and the social. With these people I tend to be somewhat provocative, just to shake up their system a little bit, but I’ve given up trying to explain what Logosynthesis is really about.
Still other times I’m flabbergasted. That’s when someone says that he thinks it’s the purpose of Logosynthesis to strengthen the ego. In such a case I don’t know what to say because I don’t even know where to start. In my most gentle moments I ask patient questions about how the person reached this weird conclusion, but as you know, patience is only sometimes one of my strenghts, so it can also happen that my mouth falls open and I say ‘WHAT?’
In the Logosynthesis Basic course we use the story of the seven blind men and the elephant to illustrate the issue. Everyone who recognised an element of a belief system in the Logosynthesis system is basically right, but the tail he touched is not equal to Logosynthesis, and neither is true for the elephant’s tusk tooth or the trunk. The other one’s understanding of Logosynthesis is incomplete long as he needs comparisons, which reduce Logosynthesis to one of many philosophies, one of many psychological model, one of many techniques.
X is always a metaphor people used by people to incorporate something new into their frame of reference. The effect can be that it’s reduced to what a person knows and nothing new happens, according to the syllogism: Logosynthesis is like X. I know X. I know Logosynthesis. That is similar to: The lady fits in a dress. The dress fits into a box. The lady fits into a box. Sometimes it’s difficult to recognise the implicit syllogism, because it sounds so logical.
The metaphor can also serve the purpose the expand a person’s frame of reference, but that’s not easy, because change causes fear, and new fears activate old fears. If I’m familiar with X I can help the other person to identify the similarities and the differences based on my own expertise of the subject. If I’m not familiar, I can ask questions to let the person discover the differences themselves, after they recognised the similarities already.