Analyzing of consultation videos
By Moria, Tel-Aviv (Israel)
Hello Mr. Brenifier,
I do not understand what you meant by the term “detailed analysis”. Do you wish I would write some kind of a synopsis? Well, I do not want to do that, since I am not interested in any concrete dialogue, but in the general aspect of it all. I believe I managed to follow most of the arguments.
By the way, two of the videos were cut before the end – one about “why do I always have doubts about myself”, is finished when you ask the guy what the thing that surprised him most was. Another was the elementary school kids. Further, most of the videos are not full-screen enabled.
Though I haven’t read any of your text (just an interview), I understand that what you try to do with people is not moral but logical (and sometimes even psychological): to clarify their notions about themselves and the world. You want them to think about the things that bother them and try to understand why it is that or the other way. You want them to thing – no matter about what – and if I am not mistaken, then “WHY” is the most common question you pose. The second is a generalization – what would someone like — this — think about — this –?
I first saw the woman who wanted to know why she smokes although there is no reason to do that. I was impressed by her efforts, by her understanding of a reason as something connected with mind and by how she gave her own theory about body-mind problem. But then I realized that she is a philosopher actually and I felt, well, then if for her it’s so hard, I am sure other people would find this kind of a dialogue impossible.
Afterwards I have slightly changed my mind. First, I think she was more threatened by your presence than any non intellectual who might care less how smart they turn out to be. Secondly, I assume that the more a person is fluent and likes to talk, the less you have the potential to affect him. I think that that is why what you do is more suited to people who will be silent with a psychologist. Of course, that does not mean these types I’ve mentioned don’t all have strong opinions as well as thinking mistakes, only that your method is easier with lesser words.
[Still, I wonder whether there is a way to be less dichotomic about the options you are supplying to your listener. Yes but, and no but can be a very fruitful answers, why don’t you think that?]
In the personal sessions, I wondered whether the conclusion you offered by the end was a real knowledge for the other person, or some kind of tautology. Why do I have doubt? Because I don’t look at myself, I don’t want to see that I don’t know, I prefer a beautiful illusion over an ugly reality”. Even if it is a new knowledge, does knowing motivates this guy into a change of his concept? Doesn’t something missing? At least a further interaction, I believe. Can change happen so instantly and get over our habits? I doubt that possibility (and I doubt myself simultaneously, that’s why I was drawn into that particular video).
I thought that that guy was confused by the end of your meeting, and so was the smoking woman, who couldn’t express her feelings regarding what happened. I felt she was exhausted and that things could have taken a less intensive tempo. That is not true with the children, because they had time to think between questions. Regarding them, I thought you did not summarize what it was that you were trying to do, and left some of them puzzled.
What I liked most was your ability to detect performances of the arguments given. You did it for both of the persons as well as for one of the elementary school boy. This is stuff psychologist kill for… I understand that you are critical towards psychology as it is nowadays. But again, I believe that it takes a lot more to change your very basic concepts about the world than simply realize them. I personally am involved with a psychological treatment for 3 years (!) already, and I think I was very flexible, very practical, and still it took that long to feel that I assimilated the change.
I wonder if you do have an essentialist postion regarding human nature or morality, or whether you are a post modern of some kind. Your hero Socrates was interpreted both ways. From what I saw, your practice does not involve any moral pre-assumptions about “the human being”, and I believe that it does not contrast your reliance on abstractions and generalizations.
I am sorry for the somewhat chaotic response…