Comments on: Distinction: Solution-Focused Coaching vs. “being positive”

By: Boeken die je denken fundamenteel veranderd hebben

Boeken die je denken fundamenteel veranderd hebben — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:41:55 +0000

[...] Benardon: 1. Veronika Decides to Die by Paulo Coelho 2. Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach Paolo Terni: 1. Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein 2. The Nurture Assumption by J.R. Harris 3. [...]

By: Michael Hjerth

Michael Hjerth — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:06:00 +0000

Paolo, there is no puzzle.The puzzle is an illusion coming from ignoring context dependence. I had a philosophy session with my son Adrian to examine this, and it became clear that if you draw a blue circle on a paper and paint the outside jellow: You can see and inside and outside and a border. If you remove the outside yellow you can see a border on a circle of blue. If you remove the inner circle, you can still see a border to a yellow surface. If you remove the inside blue and the outside yellow of the circle there is nothing there. No border. So inner explanations, outer explanations and inbetween explanations are interdependent. The are only there relative the others. This is a bit metaphoric. But looking at the various sciences of human life as interdependent makes a lot of sense. No science is complete and independent since it is interdependent. (this does not have anything to do with relativism. All relative views are NOT equaly true, since there is only one true possible relative view that we are approximating in science)

Michael

By: Paolo Terni

Paolo Terni — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:32:02 +0000

@Michael: how?

By: Michael Hjerth

Michael Hjerth — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:25:35 +0000

PS…
I think I solved my puzzle above:)

By: Michael Hjerth

Michael Hjerth — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:40:39 +0000

Hm, I’d like to jump into to the discussion here. I won’t really, since I need to write to much to make sense. But I can’t resist jumping in anyway, since I like the thinking of you guys.

So let a confused head ask this: The inside/outside choice in which scientific view point that fits SF can equally well be constrasted with a “Inbetween” view OR a “all-over” view.

But, is there a usefull difference between “Inbetween” and “all-over” perspectives. It seems to me that Paolo, myself, and perhaps Alva Noë (to take an academia name), is more “All Over”, and Kirsten, Mark, and perhaps Rom Harré, is more “inbetween”.

So, is Solution focus:
NEITHER inside/NOR outside (therfor inbetween)
AND/OR
BOTH inside/AND outside/AND relationship inside/outside (therefor allover)?

As you might think, Im a bit lost inbetween thoughts going all-over the place. I never was a good philosopher:)

Be well, and have a good time this weekend
Michael

By: Paolo Terni

Paolo Terni — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:04:03 +0000

Thanks!!

… and don’t worry, I am sure we will find topics on which we disagree! :))

By: Kirsten Dierolf

Kirsten Dierolf — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:58:07 +0000

Wow Paolo — this is really really good stuff! I will include your post in my mailing to my training participants. With all the links and the background: Wittgenstein, Positivity, Heuristics, Behavioral Economics … THANKS.

And (almost sorry to say now): I couldn’t agree more.
Kind regards,
Kirsten