How can superconsciousness destroy you

'i' ':' r ,,. ',, :::' isdiirs::;: titliii:] ilti: a] :::: i; iti:]] :: il] ::]] i: 1lllieltliliriillritü1ij 'aqi, trild'rphii'horäneni ntiiertessschauen

Transcript

1

2 Dear reader; A few years ago, Frich Friecl, whom I greatly admire, aptly rhymed with the fact that a broken promise is a spoken crime. Well - none of the promises made in the foreword to number 5 have been broken - the obscured text by Andrew McDonald is there, as are the promised texts by Johannes Wiltschko - and even more so than what was promised So I think you don't see it as a crime , if this time - again due to lack of space - the focusing ABC (= glossary of basic terms) is interrupted at G and only continued in number 7. Promised, Sincerely yours, Hans Neidhardt And here is the very promising CONTENT. ; 1; llllal :: ialll: il: ilirili: llillall: irlii.li:, 'r.rl, ial: ii.lp: lr: ia.illlii ll: l: r.llii.ll.i.llii llii ll : i i.rl arlarlr: irrllllttr: i '::: i] li iriirir.lllllarl'i.i.ll: i.rlil:!. iitiallii.r':, i: r.'riri iirl: tt: lill : l:}:] 'l: i: lr: i ::: i ::. i: 1, ::,' llr'rlf400 & i8.: ':! vilto'c, fi] kci: ",", i ':!:,; ü1i:; iii1i1; 1; 1i: li.1tii; 1,11;' dei1i8't thtp! i: ß ,, r ',,,: ,,,,' ,,, i, ,, ",,, r iti]: luill: l.llil: r,: l.llilill.l:, lll]: ll:] litl: i.] :. li]]] rrllb4lrrilädir.rlbimlil ,, iieg, laihtsäinre6 'i' ':' r ,,. ',, :::' isdiirs: l] llitli; r: lt:; l ::]: r: r, r: li t: tir:] ilr: l. lr: l: rrir:, ljp.ßö'ätäättiliia; i: fi; iüifi, ti..lliijd., iihä'ho'ji:;: titliii:] ilti: a] :::: i; iti:]] :: il] ::]] i: 1lllieltliliriillritü1ij'aqi, trild'rphii'horäneni ntiiertessschauen; ä :: l * li: lil: i: ll: rili:; 448ggieflstäfü ,: ',, ","', 'I ', "' ': 1: 1, ii 1' l1:; 1i1; i1:; ti: i: ltt1; 1,1xqi0e: ii! $ Be.l; 11'.g;,: ... :: - ..: '. i] iii, lliii, liii.:, i,', ti, i.:.,:; liil & {i60ggfl l & .1..1. '' .. r'.r .. ' . '' '1' '.. 1.' 'R'1: i ..' ', 1 ,:', * i * ;: r: satts no: i, n: '' coaihins urd supe rvision to be used n ll} l iii: titi :: 1illiiii: 'i.mgd ilh -, t2 ur: irlital: rralriil: ll :: r :: iri: iar: iiii':. il'1., i1r: r9 22. Andrew McDonald rrii r, ii ': ",.' ii ..: i, i., '' ii: llllililllll: lil: ilrir: lrrr: ariraririi]: lli: r: .i: rlr'rr]: ilrl: .ji1i: iry: ll'yilryi :. The shift is just the beginning: l1l: lall: it: iitli: lallll: irrl: lalll: t :: ila'ji!; I! Ja:. ::, rl1li: llr ::;:. R.; R; i :::;: i.rr :: i; I r 25 l: l ::: l: lf; 0i0ii: * lsi: ib i: l, ßatüeitiine i rrerikran ku ns

3 About two forms of mindfulness: person-centered focusing and phenomenon-centered looking Johannes Wiltschko Living in the Wordless Thinking in the usual way about the question of what focusing is is pretty useless. Why? Because the term "focusing" has as its content the process of reflection. But we can turn the sentence around: mlf and focusing on what thinking is can be pondered. Focusing is a tool of thinking (and for many other things). So we can use the process of focusing to think - if we want to grasp, understand and express something that we cannot yet grasp, understand and express, only that actually deserves the name "think". Something is there, somehow sensed as an indefinite, urgent experience that needs to be grasped, understood and expressed. Where is it? It is in the air, raises question marks, it annoys or interests us as an unsolved tangle in the brain - and if we pay attention, we notice that this tangle is in the breath, in the bowels, in the heart, i.e. in that what we call "body". To notice this tangle as something - and not to be this tangle - to perceive it, to give it a benevolent space in the so-called body and to linger with it unintentionally, that is how "focusing" begins as action, as practice. When I practice this way of thinking, I notice when and how this tangle opens up and becomes the space into which I can enter, myself as the perceiving subject. It is as if my body, felt from within, is expanding, filled with tangled elements, which I experience as a subtle and thousandfold linked tissue, as a living weave in which I am, not lost in it, but safe: awake, attentive, amazed, abolished and knowing in a special way, knowing in the absence of every word. The annoying, unsettling tangle shows itself, as I live in it, as a miracle that hides me in the most diverse, lively interconnectedness: connections, relations and relationships in which I participate. Thinking is living in what appears at the fuzzy edge of what has already been thought, what has already been said and which leads into what has not yet been thought, what has not yet been said. I can and may decide whether I will come back from there with words that I can then say and write - if I want. But thinking as living in the wordless does not need speaking. 2

4 F Nt6, tuni 2OOJ Abstract is about which one can handle cheaply, just put it in the mouth without it being physically effective, without it having an effect, without it becoming reality. If we say "mindfulness" and really mean it, then we have to be mindful, because mindfulness as an abstraction points to an action, to a process, without which there is no mindfulness. Mindfulness is mindfulness. May many talk about mindfulness; we are, otherwise we wouldn’t need to talk about it. Keeping content Words must be slaughtered So we don't want to think about focusing, but rather think about focusing, e.g. about what focusing is. This is a big difference, and this difference is literally nothing more than the swapping of the words r "about" and "with". So if you ask yourself "What actually is focusing?", Then use the tool focusing to search for answers. Without this tool you will not find any, because the thinking we are used to today would only shift the word "focusing" back and forth without to penetrate the word itself without cracking it open, without dissolving it in the flow of the momentary experience and understanding it as a phenomenon that is always something experienced. Words have to be slaughtered, Christian Morgenstern once said. In the context of psychotherapy, focusing is therefore not an "intervention technique", it changes what happens in every moment when we invite the client (and ourselves) to notice what he or she is expressing, to feel in oneself as a physically felt something that always transcends the words or gestures that have just been expressed. Focusing invites the person to regain themselves as the subject of their own (inner and outer) world. Mindfulness is mindfulness For this attitude and for this behavior I introduced the term "mindfulness" into our focusing language about 15 years ago and prefixed this term with the adjective "unintentional", which is actually a tautology. Of course, I did not invent the term mindfulness, but got to know it in my training in Hakomi therapy at the time and found it again in my occasional excursions into Buddhist practice. The terms "inner mindfulness" and "unintentionality" quickly spread among us. Although I used it to name something that Gene Gendlin meant, he himself never used these terms, which also suggests that Eastern thought and Eastern practice ever was none of his sources. He simply says "poy your attention fo ...", "draw your attention to ...", or "check in you r body". So now we keep the word mindfulness in our mouths, but that doesn't really mean anything. The suffix "-keit" already says that it is a matter of sheer mindfulness in our practice, and focusing differentiates this praiis, shows us many useful steps and aspects of this practice, makes it applicable to various situations and above all: It opens the door Space not to be alone with her. In partnership focusing, it becomes a relational event just as it does in psychotherapy, and this broadens the traditional mindfulness practice of meditation in a fundamental and extraordinary way. Mindfulness takes place in mindfulness. Without being mindful, the term mindfulness is empty, meaningless and incomprehensible. What is mindfulness? Be mindful and observe your mindfulness in what is focusing? Practice it to find an answer: Mindfulness and focusing are not things, are not content that is right or wrong, true or untrue, they are procedures, they are tools to perceive things, to understand things, to live with them . Tools are not true or false, they are effective, usable, useful or not. Mindfulness and focusing are attitudes and behavior in order to be able to retrieve content - instead of being able to identify with them, instead of denying and distorting them, instead of getting lost in them, instead of being directed by them. Subjective anarchism is social Everything that we mean by mindfulness - and from now on I say dear mindfulness - is the source, is the heart, is the essence of what we add to that in ours We practice culture and society ourselves and what we do with our fellow human beings, e.g. want to invite our clients to do the same. "Holding" in mindfulness whatever it is is the best we can currently do in and with ourselves and with others. Because from this follow steps that are thought steps and healing steps at the same time, as Gene says. And I would like to add: They are also political steps, because they enable each individual to determine himself. From this follows subjective anarchism, which is social and related to the world. Nobody would have to be afraid of him if he or she were not afraid of themselves. Without looking ourselves in the eye carefully, we will not win anyone to do the same. I would now like to fine-tune the tool "mindfulness" a little and first correct two concepts of mindfulness to which we have become accustomed.

5 FocusingJournol Mindfulness is not a state Most of the time we understand mindfulness to be a state, an attitude, a condition for the process. State, attitude, condition, these are words that mean something static. But being mindful is not staying, but doing, moving. Mindfulness requires seeking out certain perspectives, requires the power of will to direct, hold, focus, and expand attention; it requires holding back everything that comes into the open in an evaluating, interpreting and constructing way, and it requires that what one is attentive to is fetched. At my birthday party, which was held outdoors, with a big fire, African drums and meat grilling, the following metaphor came to mind: Mindfulness is a rotisserie. I spear something with him and then grill it slowly and patiently, but with a watery mouth. The breath is the fire. I have to breathe, I have to impale, I have to turn. Mindfulness also requires predatory energy, not just indulgence and incense sticks. The word "hold" has become particularly important to me, hold something in mindfulness. "Holding" is an activity that includes both Winnicott's holding - holding something like a baby - and phallic impaling. By the latter I mean a certain energy as an attitude and movement that is not gender specific. Mindfulness is not a flashlight We like to use the metaphor of the flashlight, with which one can shine around inside. But: "Attention is not like a spotlight that shines on this one time, sometimes that where everything is available, so to speak, but things are always given to us in a certain way of organization, and this changes with the change of attention ... It doesn't work to merely letting what is already there appear, but to create an original appearance, in the course of which things become what they are. " (8. Walde nfels, Das bodliche Selbst, Suhrkamp 2000, p.63) We can also read about this in Gene's Experiencing Theory: Directing attention to an inner reference object (direct referent) can already be a corrying forr, before n One step forward. Living attentively in what has not yet been said, in what has not yet been formed brings growth, development and change. Raindrops Mindfulness is a muscle that needs to be trained. Usually, something that I practice with deliberate intent rarely succeeds. But without practice, the success remains an even rarer coincidence. A few days ago this coincidence happened to me for a second of my life. I had breakfast with my son under a parasol in the rain. Absentmindedly I watched the raindrops as they plopped into a small puddle. Suddenly I noticed myself and I noticed a drop and its curls in the pool of water. I was there for a moment and the raindrop was there - and so on t was not there. For a moment I was happy; no thought, no association, no construction connected me to the raindrop. I'm here, he's there, and we're already connected, just like that, of course I am. The thought of how much I like rain, its sounds and its smell, ended that second. But in this brief moment I understood what I had never really understood for 30 years, namely what is meant by Husserl in the phenomenological method by epochi or "reduction": the refusal of subjective additions; refraining from putting personal meanings into a phenomenon; not indulging in my inner images and fantasies that are evoked by a phenomenon and taking these as its meaning; to perceive the thing as it shows itself by itself. The drop. Thump. Three curls. The drop, this client, my dream image, this uncomfortable mood. There is nothing behind it, nothing below it; it is there what is there, it is what it is, and that is complete, complete. A great freedom, a great connectedness. Great luck. Person-centered and phenomenon-centered Dasein with the drop can be expressed in a romantic German poem or in a simple Japanese haiku. It depends on the type of mindfulness practice, s. I would therefore like to make a distinction in it. I can make anything and everything into something, a topic, and I can carefully follow what this topic evokes in me. In this way I mainly learn something about myself in relation to ... This practice is person-centered and what we usually do in focusing. Any topic triggers an internal process, my attention is primarily interested in the content that emerges and how I relate to it. This practice brings up a lot of personal material. But if I mindfully "hold" something, a topic, a phenomenon and notice myself, am there with this phenomenon and do not interfere with anything, this phenomenon can show itself by itself and I "look" at it. It is not what this phenomenon generates in me that comes into mindfulness, but rather "the thing itself" remains in focus. This practice is phonome-centered. But phenomenon-centered is not self-turned away or disembodied. I (my body, my breathing, my feeling, hearing, seeing) are directly connected to the phenomenon - in the parent situation. +

6 No. 6. June 20Of Phenomenological vs. Constructivistic In contrast to the usual perception of an object, in which the place of which and with which I perceive - namely my body - is habitually faded out (in scientific observation even systematically as a method), I notice myself in phenomenological viewing as the starting point for my respective perspective. I am, I, the subject, I, the bodily being that has always been connected and will be connected for life with what is around it, connected in a continuous process of exchange - without which it would not live. This interconnectedness, this exchange process does not take place through the sense organs alone, not even primarily. Because, as Gene Gendlin emphasizes again and again, we are not someone who perceives the world outside through a peephole, self-trapped in a subjective world of perception, locked in a neurological apparatus and therefore dependent on constructions about what could be out there and ultimately in the uncertain whether there is anything at all. Knowing the world and ourselves through the five senses may be restricted and convey a certain separation. But our body - as "body" - is present, directed towards the world, connected to it; he is always in a situation with ... (someone or something). Our body therefore knows the world. Living on this basis, we can also look, think about the extent to which we also construct (or deconstruct) the world and ourselves - as an act of freedom, as getting lost in arbitrariness, as an expression of our being alien and alienated, as hope Growth and progress. But we do not get beyond our being in the world as a matter of principle, beyond our being in and living.And that, I think, is a good thing, because this being is not only a "being thrown", but also a feeling of security in that which is more and greater than each individual. Beauty vs. usefulness It is therefore beautiful - there is, to put it old-fashionedly, a beauty in itself, an aesthetic - simply to dwell on a phenomenon, to accept it, to let it be, and not use it straight away wanting to get ahead personally. In the "utilization" of everything and everyone for personal growth, for economic advancement, this beauty has been pretty much lost. And even if we practice focusing, it would be nice to pay attention to what appears by itself as a phenomenon, to keep it mindful and not just to be a step, a shift out. Not wanting to go on straight away, but staying with what is already there as a continuous process of becoming, requires courage in our time. Courage needs willpower "Noticing this and making it available to the dwelling with the phenomena allows us to have the redeeming experience that what is is enough. That was what I said 15 years ago" All attentiveness, all perceiving, all thinking begins in the present, in which you are just now. In you as a physical being. And there, and only there, you can start anywhere and anytime, person-centered focusing and phenomenon-centered looking practice, each for itself and both connected with each other. You can find small instructions on pages 29 and 32. Johonnes Wiltschko A-5142 Eggetsberg Tel./Fax: Joha noon.ot

7 l (body love Annegret Stopczyk "body love" - ​​a word existing, ä, utlwe, fib [tar] 1; :: kö.lip {i:;, snd; 1ill!, El: 0e. Since Re nö Descartes is body d fi'n tit'.eli} i! .ne, $ ü! elongation in length, height and width. A D1ng, an Aq! omat, e! nel].,] lvlläti] hii , nt.] i]] his human body - an autorma !; l li'n.i: .d: 9ff: 'l.det: t: l: qh körpe rl i ch ei st de nkt. Already for Socrates de, l: Kö'ipe'rt''n.ü.idä3uG1gtä, ng1njS, 'd il5iele, l was only r i, nt,: 1.0d; ..' ei { i'h.ib.äii ', lin1lihtl, r' :: we-n'n.rlvii, with this 'evil of the body rsve rhaftetlii: ntd'til :: rr':. r.:,ltt ',': lt ,,: 'i, :: t,: tttlt "- - - Since Sappho," Love "has meant Se hnsü'ehil: athde {' w! 5li'chrbe $: e means ,, ': Love, that Mysterious in me the same, r, the wiirr, he, urterrlüefülli, n rnno; a word that for Sappho is not yet "gäbr .." [üe.n $ wefrig like the word "body r"; later you rch altqr, iectt, llitrq: .p.! jlatqph.in: .de 'neur: e nrt: covered.n Vtrn u nf invented. " 'l' .; l "lliir'r" r'irr'ijr'iir'iir "l1'l.lrl is strange, mirl'this word" body rliebe''l "oi '* o, iaerr;:' since I also use other languages' .Le rne know of love. '.' ir rr "'liiil'i:' ,, ',,' 1 '',; ,, ',, 1 - I love when I caress your body a thing, an object, an object, an automaton? The prison of your soul? I would never love anything that keeps you coming. Am I soul (what does the word "I" mean?) Without a body? Separated from my fingertips, which tenderly touch your skin? What do I and our culture have been calling for thousands of years. How is it beyond the word for myself? Or does this "afterlife" not exist, which I use the word love to refer to? Is love just a bourgeois term, as I heard from my teachers, who, in the manner of the Frankfurt school, equate everything positive with positivism and only allow negative dialectics to apply ? No more love poems after Auschwitz, no more yes to this world of the corporeal, in which pain, violence, love, longing, freedom and the most beautiful words from softly kissed lips are present at the same time?

8 NrLJuni 2l0l No longer silent about love Is love the most yearning Sejahung, the greatest attraction between two people that a person can feel? And because there is hatred, should we keep silent about love? What we can't talk about, we should keep quiet about it, said Wittgenstein, who I was so enthusiastic about as a philosophy student. With that he (also Landauer, also Mauthner) withdrew into silent mysticism, this beyond of words and things. Only the three-dimensional expanded things, the bodies, could be called with words, as if we were sticking nameplates on them. But everything that we so name with words would remain stale compared to what we could feel in the world. "It shows itself" beyond the world, that which is essential to us in the well - asserted Wittgenstein. "It shows up" - but how does it show up? Love for example? Body love? Beyond words and concepts. "We want love and have sex," said Veronika Ferres in a film. What is sex as different from love? Is there an inability to speak of? An inability not only to mourn but also to love? Is the philosophical silence of love also made to disappear that which it is before the word can name it? That "what is shown", preverbal, transverbal, meta conceptually? Maybe I don't love you at all when I stroke you? Maybe I just want to kiss, caress, feel loved, hear your deep hum at my ear, your words, run with you, do something, plan, laugh, touch, sink into love drunkenness? I have these body feelings and there is no love behind it, but only the experience with you that wants to become more. I can't handle the word love. It's pretty abstract. What experiences do you cover with this word? When we stroll around lovingly, words are not essential for what constitutes this jointly created physical pleasure. When my fingertips seem to küise your bushy eyebrows as if they were my lips, which is called "caressing", or when your hot breath burns a sweetness on my skin that surprisingly activates brain stem reflexes and paralyzes my speech center - what then shows up What is that which I experience in person beyond the physiological facts? What goes on in me when I let the hair on the back of my neck run through my fingers and I keep doing it? What of it is body and what of it is love, sorted according to the conceptual dualism of the last n two; one thousand five hundred years, who cannot even name this combination of words, what happens then? Wai is between body and love when I stroke you with my hands and I feel that, for which I may say the word "love" too quickly? What is the tingling an inch below the skin in my fingertips when I slowly guide it over your eyebrows in its skeptical arc? How can I explain it in words, with just two terms that seem so far apart? Body and love. Are your brows pure bodies to me? Could I feel the fine tingling on the back of a bristle pig, a cat or a hedgehog if I just stroke it very gently? Is a little hair on your brow just one thing among a thousand things in this world, expanded physically in measurable quantities? And it's just pure sentimentality, love fussiness, that I imagine that your eyebrow is the most special thing in the world, filled with all of your life that I love, all of your raised moments over the edge of your glasses when you look at me because I am just massaging something What you have not yet thought about, surprised, questioning, in expectation that I will resolve your attitude in half yes and half no, your skepticism. Philo-Sophiq des Leibes The seminar on body philosophy by Annegret Stopczyk as part of the 2'1. International Focusing Summer School until August 12, 2001 Info and registration: Summer School Office Bronnbachergasse '18a D Würzburg

9 FocusingJou rnaj What is phenomenology? The philosopher Marit Rullmann described my way of bodily philosophizing in her book as "introspective" and "phenomenological". Is the attempt to describe the prefix of the words "phenomenology"? Everything in me resists this concept of the history of philosophy. Didn't the phenomenologists like Husserl or Merleau-Ponty believe that they could grasp the truth purely for themselves beyond conceptual reflection? Even Kant would then be a phenomenologist, because he believed that he could observe and describe human reason entirely in itself through its own reason, even before the concepts sort our knowledge, our perception. Herder had already protested against it at the time. Phenomenology is the study of appearances, the appearance of what happens in me when I do something consciously. The introspection without interpretation, purely for itself. Is that possible? It would then have to be possible to describe the caressing phenomenologically on its own, without my doing anything of my own accord. But how is that supposed to work? A phenomenological text reflects something that is beyond the word. That is why it is usually not easy to digest food. Should I split off my fingertips from all my experience with those eyebrows, behind which stands the man whom I recognize in this detail? Its mental meaning to me. His physical appearance to me. Being a man for me. I do not recognize the eyebrow in itself when I stroke it, not separated analytically without what I sense when my fingertips slowly approach these sensitive, fine protrusions above his eyes. I am already creating the expectation of meaning in the skin of my fingers, which is reinforced in me as soon as it touches the physical density of his body. Something of me dips into this action, as it were, which makes up the excitement in the tingling, what I get back transformed through the touch as my feeling for him with myself. The result is what was called "lip" or "a body" in the Nibelungenlied. This does not mean the physical "body", but a common reality. The Old Testament phrase "and they became one body" means that a feeling unites two people and abolishes their physical separation in the common feeling. When Siegfried said goodbye to his parents in Holland in the Niblungelied to visit Krimhild, they both cried and "ir bider lip mourned". Their common body mourned, the translation should have read, but instead "they mourned" is translated into New High German. Language for unified corporeality would have to be reformulated; Measured by lived and felt experience meta-conceptually. Poetry is tingling on the skin. I call this inner act poetry. What is poetry? The opposite of phenomenology. I am not looking for a truth that I wanted to objectively describe, I am creating a truth. I create the tingling sensation in my skin through ideas and expectations that I associate with the man, to whom I feel deeply drawn, with whom an infinitely pleasant field of attraction can be created that would not exist without us. Poiesis is the Greek word for "create", "invent", "produce", almost also "give birth". When I poetry, I create something that can only come about through me. I am the source of what I take for granted. Even some may say that it is just superfluous fantasizing or romantic fuss, but what please do we when we stroke someone and feel what we also call "happiness"? We quickly put up our feelings in big words and believe we understand and feel them. But don't the words sometimes take away our feelings? How much time do we allow ourselves for bodily experience of sensations? A poetic phenomenology assumes that our sensations, our inner bodily states, our words and thoughts cannot be described like things of the external world, by sticking a word on them like a label or a poster. Rather, our sensations are understood as creative processes that a person can generate from himself. It is the attempt to look into the craft, so to speak, of the special human process of creation, whereby this "looking" itself is already a poeticization, an interpretation, here too there is no objective extra-bodily and interpretation-independent self-reflection. No free spirit thinks in my supposed automaton body. Parmenides, the philosopher of an archic goddess culture of wisdom, tried to pass on the words of his goddess: Knowledge does not come from nothing, from the pure spirit, but from the composite nature of our limbs. Not I think, but my body thinks. Loving Creates Matters Loving Creates Matters. I give you great importance for my life. There is no objectively correct inner course of action for this act. We can be wrong, fall in love with false expectations, because the beloved does not care much about what we notice too late. Then love pain arises. Our creative power is flagging. The world looks gray. We stop poeticizing. The facial features take on a harsh expression, the voice only speaks what is absolutely necessary, becomes sparse, clings to securely defined things of the body world, lets its own source become silent.

10 I I No. 6, June.O0I But that we can also be wrong in our feelings, we point out that when we love n we are inseparable in body and sensation, in skin and thinking, in feeling and reason. The physical is not pure nature either, original and more reliable than our intellectual endeavors. We are mixed beings who constantly try to grasp with our language consciousness what happens beyond it, what is conceivable, perceptible. We feel differently with words than without words, we also feel inspired by words. Words can create feelings, as almost every novel proves. Speaking and feeling are mutually dependent. There is never only one region in the brain that is consciously active, not even when I am lovingly caressed. In my feeling, which I am used to calling love, word worlds are built in, which constantly create the feeling of love anew. Memory of your most beautiful sentences whispered in me in my ear - they create almost the same body sensation in me that I had when you kissed my ear with your lips. The happiness hormones are also released as remembered events in the brain and create that sweet sense of wellbeing that it had just got to know with these words. Endorphin releases can be generated with words n and with gestures, remembers or currently happening in person. Our conscious body life is far more complex than we previously thought. Nietzsche was right: the greatest mystery for us humans is our own life. In order to understand body and love, it is necessary to conceptually abolish the old philosophical separation between body and mind, between body and conscious feeling. All of this in the hope that other mixed bodily experienceable states may then set in, which can be expressed using terminology more closely related to the body and which are nevertheless analytical. Words are always analytical. You can't be otherwise. They set something in a row, which is mostly experienced at the same time. Words last much longer than experience. They are tied to the physique of our vocal cords, our larynx, they are spoken one after the other. They are tied to the length of time the letter was carried out, to the technique of placing symbols in writing one after the other. We cannot pronounce six words at the same time. We can, however, think several different thoughts or words, feel feelings and perceive sensations at the same time. Poetic thinking does not separate the language center from the more conceptual right hemisphere of the brain, it is in both hemispheres when it is active, it feels and speaks at the same time, it is creative, invented and invents a connection between all the millions of pieces of information that are currently being processed in the body the greatest part of our conscious attention. When I stroke you, what is my conscious attention? Do I intend to accompany with words what my fingers are doing? According to the type: Now I am stroking the fine hair on your chest As word-conscious attention? There is another type of conscious attention that I have discovered. I call it bodily attention. Somehow, without a commentary from my language center, I feel in the touching area of ​​the skin what it means to touch. The brain has perhaps activated a new region "body sense" since I learned to become conscious beyond words. This bodily awareness is highly conscious, alert and sensitive, it can be translated into suitable words or into other arts of expression. But it can be felt beyond language. The physical can be experienced in itself, so to speak. Novalis called this ability "body sense".Falling in love is an intellectual act. Am I less mistaken when I fall in love more bodily than just the usual way of projecting my language-conscious ideas and expectations? What do I feel in caressing my lover? Is everything covered by my poetry? Doesn't it appear in it as its own reality? When my fingertips, the back of my hand, or my nose rub over your eyebrows, my thighs feel your slightly hairy ones at the same time, my ears hear your breathing and my eyes see your relaxed face. You emanate a physical, physical atmosphere into which my caressing is integrated. I am not separated from you in my caressing. I am not an analytical caress as if we were in two test tubes and only touched our glass panes when we touched. The skin is not a real boundary, it does not close us off when we stroke it, as if we visually perceive ourselves at a distance as being enclosed and closed by the skin. The haptic sense of feeling hands takes the skin as a vehicle to create a sensation between this side and the other side of my skin and his skin. His skin could shiver if he didn't like me, contract, or become strangely dull. But it becomes smooth, relaxes and warms up. Then I speak beautiful sentences and it becomes clear to me at different levels of my attention that my caress is good for him, that it creates something in him that strives towards me, that strengthens our attraction, that affirms my being. Falling in love does not exist in such moments, it only comes into the memory when he is gone or sits three meters away from me and my skin remembers, not only of my own active caressing, but also of passive enjoyment, myself to be caressed by his skin and hands. Falling in love is a fairly intellectual post-interpretation business. Here, culturally and individually shaped wishes can easily become stronger than the actual haptic experience of the skin would justify. "The skin is an organ of knowledge," claimed Ashley Montagu. As a physical expression of internal states, it is quite unmistakable. It is not for nothing that lie detectors and other electronic skin measurements can be used to check certain words or assertions that someone makes for their truthfulness.

11 Fnetrcinn lntrnnl Anyone who says "I love you" and gets goose bumps when he or she is caressed represents a discrepancy to the stated sentence. Feeling this discrepancy in caressing is a higher art that we do not use as a cultural technique is practiced, but it can be felt by those who are haptically talented. Now it could be said that the poetic thinking can ignore the caressing body experience and be mistaken. But precisely poetic thinking and feeling can do this much less easily than rationalizing linguistic thinking. It is connected with what has just been felt, draws poetic inspiration from the haptic or some other sensual experience. In an inconsistent situation, it could be that a strangely uncomfortable feeling arises that reduces sensual pleasure and suddenly there is, for example, the need to move away from the beloved in order to do something else. Without conscious bodily awareness one can miss the haptic information, we do not interpret it because we are not used to being caressed. Stroking is usually considered an irrational activity that has nothing to do with our cognitive activity. But this is only so in a culture in which body and mind are understood as separate worlds, in which one world supposedly cannot contain any information from the other world. How a female and male body still emerges But what about the erotic caressing? If I perceive you as masculine when you stroke and at the same time I perceive myself as a feminine woman? What's this? Am I doing everything wrong then? Am I caught up in femininity and a prevailing gender ideology that divides all people into male and female in order to assert the rule of heterosexuality, as modern feminist theories would interpret my experience? The dominant feminist theory is shaped by the patriarchal demarcation between body and mind. According to Judith Butler and other theorists, our gender identity is a social role construct and has nothing to do with our physicality. According to this, our body would be a neuter, so to speak, that is born into the respective culture as a completely independent foreignness and then receives the classifications with which people would then identify, as women, as men. Here the physical is not understood as a possibility of knowledge, but as an arbitrary tabula rasa for the mind or traditional culture. The common Anglo-American distinction between "sex" and "gender" reflects this dualistic worldview impressively. Sex is assigned to the purely physical and gender to the intellectually shaped gender role in society. "Gender Studies" only deal with the gender identity that has arisen in society and research the way people think about men and women by analyzing and criticizing texts. This fixation of text and words does not reflect any physical practice. We seem to exist as pure linguistic creatures who encode and decode or deconstruct each other with words of power or impotence. Pure idealism. At the end of these analyzes it is stated that what a woman and what a man is cannot be defined, because there is an exception for every definition. The exceptions now determine the definitions. To be a woman is ideology, and to be a man, too, because societal gender ascriptions and role expectations can be exposed as patriarchal heterosexual claims to power. "Sex" appears in these discussions only as a pro) vocation and parody against the dominant hetero society. The body of the feminist is instrumentalized politically. To love morally well is to love against the prevailing kind of majority. In any case, the minority is right. An arrogance against how most people like to live and love is recognizable. The majority principle is automatically equated with the principle of rule. The aristocracy of the minority, the avant-garde, is all the rage. Physicality does not matter in this delimitation thinking. It only means an irrational terrain for worthy intellectuals, which does not need to be considered because the talk of the body can only end in biologism, the dualistically constructed opposite side of rationality. Something between body and mind does not exist in this thinking. The split is now also maintained in these feminist theories of "gender studies" against so-called "biologists" who dare to give physical experience an epistemological value. In keeping with genetic manipulation science, in which everything physical is considered to be manipulable and controllable through knowledge, modern feminist theory also provides the necessary intellectual background. A body-philosophical, poetic phenomenology of sexual body love in the conceptual world of academic "gender studies" would be biologism and an expression of patriarchal reduction of women to their feminine bodies, which have been codified for thousands of years with masculine power of definition as the birthing machine and sexual object. In terms of its logical structure, however, this reproach of biologism is identical to Socratic dualism and its contempt for the body. Irony, parody, ridicule were also for Socrates, the forefather of patriarchal philosophy, the best way to come to terms with physical life. Feminist theory, which taps into this old thought trap, can get hold of teaching opportunities at the universities, which are still dominated by men, but neither women nor men become freer for foreigners as a result. I think differently. On the aesthetics of sexual love When I stroke his pubic hair and the excitement that is right in the middle, and this electrifies me from my fingertips to the tips of my hair, that I want to be even closer to him - that's because it Is it just skin like all skin, a neutral body? 10

12 holds E lt tni 1nn1 Or is it because society in the upper part of my head tells me that this is a male genital and that is why my practiced female role behavior reacts to it sexually excited? Or is there a biologically determined brain stem behavior that functions in most cases between women and men in terms of reproduction? Are any of these explanations true for me? No, or more precisely: all and perhaps even more. Often it doesn't matter that I am a woman when I work, when I do everyday things. The gender of the other person is mostly unimportant to me, I hardly notice. Other topics dominate communication. For professional life, for everyday life between people, the gender dimension does not necessarily need to be noticeable and activated. Even while menstruating, a woman may completely forget that she is doing this as a woman and barely notice it. She can also give birth as if it were just a particularly painful bowel movement and nothing specifically feminine. Pregnancy can also be experienced very objectively without conscious gender identity. Even breastfeeding doesn't have to seem feminine to a mother. She works like a cow and holds out her breasts. Some mothers have experienced this as "expropriation". But anyone who adjusts intellectually to perceive body experience as feminine, which only a woman can have due to her biological possibilities, has the freedom to create erotic associations, to poetize them in order to create a great feeling. The birth specialist Sheila Kitzinger even compares the high point of her childbirth experience with an oversized, wonderful orgasm in the manner of sexual intercourse with a beloved and loving man. The erotic love experience becomes a pattern of recognition for intense beautiful feelings in other physical situations. The most specifically feminine body experience, giving birth, can be experienced in completely different ways by women; there is no pure body experience beyond expectations, interpretations and habits of association. But those who want to experience femininity in contrast to masculinity from the inner freedom of lust, and who focus on it inwardly in the world of sensation, relate these feelings to efforts with what is inherent in the opposite sex as an aesthetic characteristic. Even if all the dominant attributes of masculine and feminine dominance can easily be dispensed with, if women and men have learned to regulate their lives in a rather androgynous way, the question remains whether we should therefore forego the erotic attraction, which is a strong, beautiful sensation in the face of the desired person can be. Aesthetics is the science of perception. When I stroke the opposite sex, I can find exactly what I am friends with fascinating, the very other can promise me feelings of happiness. I doubt that this promise is only caused by a ruling heteroideology. The male gender, the male hairy thighs, the male dark voice, the slightly hairy, muscular upper body and the stubble on the facial skin can make me aesthetically through sensual perception to sense my own specific female body regions as desirous. If at the same time there is emotional agreement, more than just physical excitement increases. Trust, mutual recognition and admiration for one another also increase the intimate mixing process. This female desire is then one in which I feel myself as a woman, bodily. Why should I refuse? Just because politically many men still try to dominate women and manage to do it? But who says that a woman has to get involved with such men? The political dimension of life in gender roles is quite different from the individual, self-conscious physical love that can be between woman and man. Body politics and body love must not be equated "An abolition of patriarchal rule between men and women seems to make the most sense with the aim of love between them. A love that does not tolerate relationships of domination, but the enjoyment of sensual dependencies, attractions or devotion e In the act of caressing, violence and sex do not go together, it has an enterotic effect. Caressing lovers develop a different body love than that of using and overpowering. When caressing masculine skin, I am discovering myself as a woman Woman and I can decide whether I should strengthen, poetize, or suppress this impulse in me. Femininity is a freely producible aesthetic identity that evokes and can cultivate bodily sensations. Likewise, liberated masculinity. That I am my own Aesthetically speaking, feminine is stronger when I face it in the face of masculine n create body does not indicate a gesture of submission, but rather my freedom to enjoy a male body female. In professional life, in politics, in everyday life, women and men can deal with each other beyond their specific gender sensations, but a new poetry could emerge in body love through which we learn to love each other anew as female and male beings. When I stroke your eyebrow, my hand already has the memory of your entire body. In the tenderest touch of your eyebrow I can have the impression that I touched your innermost being beyond your skin through them. Annegret Stopczyk Homepage: stopczyk-ph i losophie.de 11

13 The reason for this text was a lecture that I brought to the lnternotional conference for professional advice. The conference is based on the theme "Consulting for Education, Work and Employment - New Challenges". The challenge for me is bestond dorin to explain to the audience - mostly people who work in work slips, as well as some scholars - on two concrete examples of how focusing can be used in the forms of cooching and supervision. This is an abridged version of the original text. J 6 (] CU -c. <) The aim of the article Coaching and supervision are forms of professional support for job-related topics. Both forms serve to reflect and improve professional behavior (Buer, 1999; Kühl, 1999; Rauen, 1999). These reflection and improvement processes are supported by coaches and supervisors. Their task is to enable managers and employees to develop new perspectives and options for action on professional problems. In order to fulfill this task, coaches and supervisors use working methods and methods from different areas of psychology, education and other disciplines (Schreyögg, 1 ee6). Having differentiated methodological knowledge is therefore one of the key competencies of the coaching and supervision staff. The aim of this article is to expand knowledge about a focusing-oriented way of working that can be used to support coaching and supervision processes. A look at the literature shows that until now focusing has hardly been discussed in the context of coaching and supervision (cf. Lippmann, 2000; We issman, 2000). After a short introduction, I would like to show the possible uses of focusing using two examples. What is Focusing? If a client addresses a professional situation in coaching in which he feels uncomfortable and he describes what is going on in this situation, a felt sense can develop on this topic. If the client is supported by the coach in observing this immediate physical experience, it is usually not yet clear to the client what this feeling means. However, the client will feel that his physical experience has to do with the situation he is describing. If the client becomes aware of this body feeling and perceives changes in the felt sense - i.e. focused on it - he will gradually be able to describe the quality of this experience in more detail. By including the body feeling and the description of it in the processing of his professional topic, the client often finds new, surprising meanings and solution steps for him. These steps make sense in a way that the client can actually feel and are often experienced as very relieving (FeltShiff). The following focusing guide is intended to give you an opportunity to perceive and describe a felt sense: Where is your felt sense? Focusing instructions to try out (w ith th eoretical notes) Imagine what you still have to do or want to do today.Pick something that makes you a little uncomfortable, e.g. a phone call or something similar. Not a big problem, but a smaller, somewhat unpleasant thing (good for a Themus). Give this a heading, e.g. "the phone call with person A" and write it down on a piece of paper. Put the piece of paper aside for a while (distance to Themo). If you want, take the posture you are in right now. Take a little time and then focus your attention on the core of your body. By noticing how your breathing is going, you become attentive to your chest and abdomen (body drawer s o m ks o m k i t). As you notice your core and your breath, I suggest that you take the subject with you into your mindfulness. Look on the slip of paper for what you called the subject and allow it to take a while to be physically effective. Notice what changes in the middle of the body (reference to the Felf Sense). Stick to this feeling for a while without evaluating it or wanting to find out anything. Just perceive it as it is (focus on the FelfSense). Describe your physical experience on this topic in more detail in words (2.8. "Narrow") or in a pictorial way (symbolize). When you have found words that fit your current experience, stop this experiment. You can recognize a (small) felt shift by taking a deep breath and by whether you are feeling a little better now. Much the experiment made something clearer to you in relation to your topic. 12

14 :: 9p I lil: #i iar: llial r.rr1l1 !!., Lliir, llc If focusing is used to coach or supervise people on work-related topics, the following goals seem important to me: (1) to facilitate and (2) the deepening of coaching and supervision processes. How these goals can be achieved in practice is illustrated in the following section using two examples. Two examples of possible applications Example 1: Cooching An account manager, 3 B years old, comes to the first coaching session. He has rarely worked for almost two years in a team in a larger company, which consists of his manager and five other employees. His weekly working hours are 60 to 70 hours. The customer seeks a solution to the following problems in coaching: He feels uncomfortable in the team and is too stressed by the high working hours. It has become clear to him that he has to change something in this situation, as otherwise more and more negative consequences in professional, private and health terms will arise for him. In the first coaching section, it is particularly important for the customer to specify the objective (see Joost-Gehren, Pommer & Scheddin, 2000). The customer must first be able to find out together with the coach which specific goals he would like to achieve for himself with the coaching. Only then will it be possible in the course of further meetings to work out behavior-related steps and use them in a professional context. In order to enable the customer to concretise the objective in a creative way, the coach would like to facilitate the coaching process for the customer at this point. This relief can be initiated by reducing the acute stress and the high pressure of problems on the customer. For the coach, this means helping the client to create an emotionally more bearable distance from the two problems. In order to find a suitable distance, the customer is instructed to symbolize the two problems "feeling uncomfortable in the team" and "high workload" with two objects. The coach suggests the client to work with inner mindfulness so that he can perceive his physical experience on this topic more precisely. By referring to the physical experience - the felt sense - it is possible for the customer to bring these objects into a noticeably more comfortable distance and thus to create inner space. As the physical change process of the customer is observed by himself and the coach, this freedom is immediately noticeable in a higher level of well-being: The customer can breathe more freely and think more clearly, i.e. H. The prerequisites for creative work on the specification of the objective are now given to a greater extent than at the beginning of the session. In the next step, the coach would like to support the customer in deepening the coaching process. On the basis of the customer's newly experienced inner freedom, the coach now uses wildcard questions (cf. Wiltschko, 1995). These questions are formulated as suggestions to the customer and relate to a positive reframing of the problem situation. An example of one of these questions is: "If the job situation was just right for you, how would it feel in your body?" If the coaching process is accompanied by the coach at this point, so that the customer can perceive a sensation regarding the joker question, then various symbolizations that are meaningful for the customer are possible in connection with the physical experience, which contribute to more clarity for the concretization of the goal setting can. The concrete descriptions of the body feeling that would arise under the optimal professional conditions implied in the joker question give the customer information on how his goals should be made more concrete. In addition to this cognitive orientation, the customer is already connected to the positive feeling on the body level. These two steps are followed by further coaching techniques in order to conclude the specification of the objectives and to transfer to the inventory (Joost-Gehren et al., 2000). At spie I 2: Supervi si o n The team at a kindergarten, consisting of 15 teachers and a leader, had no supervision for two years. The manager now wants to reintroduce team supervision, as "already known" problems have occurred over and over again in the past few months. As part of this team supervision, the employees should be given the opportunity to reflect on professional issues and, if necessary, to work out improvements. It was agreed to hold the meetings every two months. The aim of the first session is to find themes for supervision. After a long time without supervision, reflecting on professional experiences in the planned team supervision represents a new situation for the team. In addition, the statement by the leader that "already known problems" arise indicates potential conflicts in the team. If you take these two aspects together, the problem of polarization, which is often encountered in groups, may arise for the first session. This means that certain views on a problem are shared by certain group members, while others take the opposite position. For team supervision this means, on the one hand, that controversial discussions can arise during the search for a topic, which can impair the supervision process at this early stage. On the other hand, some team members could act particularly cautiously and, due to perceived group pressure, only address mundane topics in order not to address the central problem points. In order to facilitate and deepen the supervision process, the supervisor organizes the first session as follows. Before finding a topic in the group, the supervisor offers guided group focusing. The supervision process is facilitated by the fact that with this form of focusing each teacher can initially deal exclusively with her own experience. The supervisor only makes suggestions, whereupon the] i $ rrli: u,: i rri r :: l: liil, it:! Ulf '' il :: 1i: l 13

15 teachers can direct their attention. The instructions and the suggestions are aimed at all team members, but each teacher can choose their own topic and deal with it in group focusing without direct pressure from outside (cf. Krause, 2000). In order to create more freedom for the team members, it is clarified beforehand that this self-chosen topic does not have to be addressed in this session. If the supervisor creates an atmosphere in which the teachers can feel safe in group focusing, it will be easier for them to take up the suggestions contained in the instructions. If the team members actively deal with these suggestions, then the supervision process becomes through the method of group focusing deepened. By observing the instructions, the team members participate inwardly with greater freedom. This inner participation is made possible by the suggestions that invite the team members to include and focus on their direct physical experience - their Fe / tSense - on the topic they have chosen. The respective topics are therefore not only viewed from the usual perspective, but interact with the body level and the process of change inherent in it. In this way, new perspectives, cognitive finding of meaning and emotional relief can already arise in the personal focusing process. This is important for those team members who come to supervision emotionally and who could contribute to polarization, as well as for those educators who tend to avoid central topics To take into account experiences from group focusing. Conclusion In summary, focusing seems to me suitable to facilitate and deepen coaching and supervision processes. With focusing, the body is included as an additional resource in the processing of professional topics. By observing the FeltSense that can arise for any professional topic chosen by a client, he includes this level of the body in his discussion of the topic. If this process is accompanied by a coach or supervisor trained in focusing, the client is supported in perceiving his physical experience. This accompaniment also promotes the description of the body feeling, through which the personal meaning of the felt sense becomes clearer to the client. Appropriate descriptions (symbolizations) lead beyond cognitive clarity to noticeable changes - FeltShifts that are experienced by the clients as motional relief Representation changes through the physical process of change: The client becomes more open to new possible solutions, assesses the situation and himself more realistically and has more confidence in being able to actively deal with the situation (cf.Gendlin, 1996, 1998; Gendlin ft Wiltschko, 1 999; Hend ricks, 2000). Training in this method seems to me to be particularly important for the successful application of focusing. The main limits to the application of this working method are the extent to which the coach or supervisor can use this method flexibly. To ensure this, knowledge, personal experience and reflection on one's own focusing-oriented working method are necessary (cf. Lippmann, 2000). In addition, client training is also a factor in success. Focusing can only be used successfully if the clients are willing to take up suggestions from the companion to help them focus. This readiness can be supported by suitable, i. H. In the economic field, training measures that can often be carried out with little expenditure of time are promoted. What I have mainly presented in this article related to the generation of new cognitively comprehensible meanings in relation to a specific professional topic, for example about objectives in coaching to substantiate or to support the topic finding at the beginning of a team supervision. In addition to the uses of focusing mentioned here, there are other conceivable ways in which this way of working can flow into coaching and supervision. In this way, a reference to the body can of course also be established with coaching and supervision techniques that were not mentioned in this article. Furthermore, it is possible to include the client's already existing solution ideas in the physical change process and thus to check their suitability on the basis of physical experience. Buer, F. (1999). Supervision textbook. Writings from the German Society for Supervision e.v. (Title 6). Münster: vote. Gendlin, E. I (1996). Focusing-oriented psychotheropy. A hondbook of the experientiol method. New York: Guilford. Gendlin, E. I (1998). Focusing: Self-help in solving personal problems. Reinbek: rororo. Gendlin, E. Ift Wiltschko, J. (1999). Focusing in the proxy. Stuttgart: Velcro Cotta. Hendricks, lv. N. (2000). Research Basis of Focusing-Oriented / Experiential Psychology. ln D. Cain ft i. Seeman (Eds.), Seorch Boses of Humonistic Psychotheropy. American Psychological Association. German: Focusing-Orientierte Psychothera pie. Focusing Jou rnol speciol. Würzburg, DAF2000 Joost-Gehren, E., Pommer, M. ft Scheddin, M. (2000). Cooching training. Unpublished Manuscript, WOMAN's GmbH, Munich. (See also Krause, C. (2000). "So amazing what lnnehalten brings so ..." - A plea for group focusing for people who lead groups. Focusing-journol, 2 (5), Kühl, W. ( 1999). Development of Auolittits through Superylsion. Writings from the German Society for Supervision ev (Title 5). Münster: Votu m. Li ppmann, F. 0. (2000). Focusing in the Supervisio n. Focusing-jou rnol, 2 (5), 13-1e. Rauen, C. (tggg). Cooching. Innovative concepts in comparison. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Schreyögg, A. (1 996 \. Cooching (2nd ed.). Frankfurt: Campus. Weissman, S. (2000). Focusing and Coaching - "Putting Emotional Intelligence to Work". Focusing-Journol, 2 (4), Wiltschko, J. (1 995). Fgcusing therapy. GwG-Zeitschrift (g8), Dr. MichoelBolk Institute for Pedagogical Psychology and Empirical Pedagogy, Ludwig-m oxi mi I io n su n iversität München Leopoldstrasse 1 3, Munich bo I ed u psy.uni - muen che nd ew ww.focu si ng - se mino rd e

16 ffimw & e-pereffiffi, 'Part 1: The Philosophy of Access to Implicit Experience Eugene T. Gendlin In our series of small, philosophical writings by Gene Gendlin, we publish the first part of a previously unpublished monuscript. We cut redundant text items and added headings. This text neatly closes the two articles that we published in the last issues of the Focusing Journal. We will print the second part of this text in the next issue. The two conventional sciences We need a science from which you and I do not systematically fall. This knowledge needs to be added to the two most successful sciences we already have: the one commonly called "science" and the other, ecology. The second asks questions and comes to results that conventional science would never come to and vice versa. Ecology cannot replace conventional science. Why not? Because the two sciences use two different methods that incorporate two different models, so that what comes out of their respective investigations has certain characteristics that we can know in advance. In conventional science, everything that is examined is broken down into stable parts, units, atoms, and then reassembled from them. Ecology, in turn, regards everything as part of a larger whole, a holistic system, within which one part can be fully explored on its own. This is exactly the opposite model. We human beings are not reduced, but dissolved in a larger whole. So we do not appear here either. Since neither of these two models can do justice to first-person beings, it must be possible for us to create a science in which we appear. And in fact, this science is not only possible, it already exists a It is diverse, but scattered knowledge that needs to be gathered. This third science is basically first, it is the first science, since it is always a you and an I who do science - no matter what. Psychology In atomic science, every object of research is a third-person object that is viewed from the outside, like something that is over there, outside. If those observers wanted to study themselves they would hire other observers to do it. Physiology plus mentalistic psychology is not enough. Today, many scientists and philosophers assume that the human being consists of the "body", which neurology studies, and the "mind", as it is in the Cognitive science and the British philosophy of mlnd is examined. From this assumption, the body appears to be a neurological machine and the mind to be made up of a few meager cognitive functions. You and I fall through the mesh. The official "psychology" consists of some valuable but unrelated islands - in line with conventional science, from the point of view of which humans are observable objects.The "mind" consists of computer models that are able to grasp certain variables in human cognitions. I like to ask cognitive psychologists, "Don't you feel like researching the process by which you create these models?" We want to put a science next to it, with the help of which people investigate themselves. We already have a great deal of this type of science and can design more of it. The Philosophy of Entry into Implicit Experiencing My philosophy of the move to implicit experience provides a specific foundation for this new science and an understanding of the already existing: why they exist and why they must be different. In this new science, we are no longer exploring mental contents, but different types of processes. Our approach works neither with clearly defined units nor with the whole, but has precision and objectivity in recognizing types of processes, their emergence and their results. 19th