Re: Re: [acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy] The Epictetus Cure

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ron.

Does this work for you when forming your own values? I actually prefer

this sort of larger way of viewing values than trying to squeeze them into

categories in a worksheet with boundaries like: "Spirituality, Community,

Education, Friendship" and so forth. That feels like an old values clarification

exercise I used to do in grade school. Values speak to me about my larger

vision, what matters, what I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole

them out to one person and not another. Certainly our values emerge more

readily in one context over another--some of us are more community focused

and some more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can

figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this could

be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question later on-- i.e,

"Where do you want to focus the energy of your values?". But melding the

two in my view detracts from the quest for true values.

Joanne

ronleifer@... wrote:

Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light on the

ACT values issue:

"First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be? When

you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."

Ron Leifer

[Guest guest]

Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the worksheets

in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not

terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be done that

way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation, not the

endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the topic in

the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily divided--we say

so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the various

points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look with a

certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the division is

practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a really

general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes focusing

in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a domain can

deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built upon. On

the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and actually

start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start having

problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already fits, how

could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us. But we

forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer things

like " values in conflict " and an endless argument with oneself back and

forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually feel the

life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better to let

go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one life,

right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys, sorrows,

sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a person

can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own

life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that " fits. " Sometimes

this means focusing on particular domains where there is stickiness, a

grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And, sometimes it

means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape of the

whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a hand on

both views when needed.

warm regards,

Joanne Hersh wrote:

> *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own values? I

> actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than trying

> to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries like:

> " Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship " and so forth. That

> feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do in grade

> school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what matters, what

> I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one person

> and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily in one

> context over another--some of us are more community focused and some

> more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can

> figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this

> could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question later

> on-- i.e, " Where do you want to focus the energy of your values? " .

> But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for true values.

>

> Joanne*

>

> ronleifer@... wrote:

>>

>> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light on the

>> ACT values issue:

>>

>> " First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be? When

>> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do. "

>>

>> Ron Leifer

>>

>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Guest guest]

,

This detailed elaboration is pivotal in my view and so I thank you tremendously

for it. When a client is given something to work on(values on by therapist

and sees it there in black and white print, there is natural inclination

to lend a certain legitimacy that one might not otherwise lend. Call it fused

thinking, call it what you like. But no matter what you call it, I think

the ACT community benefits from being fully aware that these delineated categories

may very likely be misconstrued. Especially in terms of pliancy, for clients

who have a tendency to want to please and get an "A" on their assignment.

(The authors want me to fill this out, my therapist wants me to fill this

out, I should care some about these categories). Then there are the clients

whose lives have narrowed so much that even attempting to entertain all of

these realms could prove daunting indeed. Further adding to the confusion

is such wording as: "What can you do to make the world a brighter place?"

(see values worksheet about citizenship/community from 1995 Eifert and

Forsyth text). Yikes! Loaded terms which attempt to lead the client are

180 degrees from what true values work is. For example, my values have very

little to do with making the world a brighter place, per say. Maybe more

informed, but who knows what this could conjure up? Knowledge often brings

on a certain sobering sadness-- not cheery brightness at all.

Thanks again for taking the time to put this in perspective,

Joanne

wrote:

Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the worksheets

in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not

terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be done that

way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation, not the

endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the topic in

the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily divided--we say

so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the various

points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look with a

certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the division is

practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a really

general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes focusing

in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a domain can

deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built upon. On

the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and actually

start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start having

problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already fits, how

could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us. But we

forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer things

like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself back and

forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually feel the

life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better to let

go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one life,

right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys, sorrows,

sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a person

can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own

life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits." Sometimes

this means focusing on particular domains where there is stickiness, a

grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And, sometimes it

means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape of the

whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a hand on

both views when needed.

warm regards,

Joanne Hersh wrote:

> *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own values?

I

> actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than trying

> to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries like:

> "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth. That

> feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do in grade

> school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what matters, what

> I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one person

> and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily in one

> context over another--some of us are more community focused and some

> more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can

> figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this

> could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question later

> on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your values?".

> But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for true values.

>

> Joanne*

>

> ronleiferaol wrote:

>>

>> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light on

the

>> ACT values issue:

>>

>> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be? When

>> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."

>>

>> Ron Leifer

>>

>

[Guest guest]

Oops--second sentence should read: When a client

is given something to work on (values worksheet) by therapist.

Joanne Hersh wrote:

,

This detailed elaboration is pivotal in my view and so I thank you tremendously for it. When a client is given something to work on(values on by therapist and sees it there in black and white print, there is natural inclination to

lend a certain legitimacy that one might not otherwise lend. Call it fused thinking, call it what you like. But no matter what you call it, I think the ACT community benefits from being fully aware that these delineated categories may very likely be misconstrued. Especially in terms of pliancy, for clients who have a tendency to want to please and get an "A" on their assignment. (The authors want me to fill this out, my therapist wants me to fill this out, I should care some about these categories). Then there are the clients whose lives have narrowed so much that even attempting to entertain all of these realms could prove daunting indeed. Further adding to the confusion is such wording as: "What can you do to make the world a brighter place?" (see values worksheet about citizenship/community from 1995 Eifert and Forsyth text). Yikes! Loaded terms which attempt to lead the client are 180

degrees from what true values work is. For example, my values have very little

to do with making the world a brighter place, per say. Maybe more informed,

but who knows what this could conjure up? Knowledge often brings on a certain

sobering sadness-- not cheery brightness at all.

Thanks again for taking the time to put this in perspective,

Joanne

wrote:

Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the worksheets

in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not

terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be done that

way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation, not the

endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the topic in

the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily divided--we say

so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the various

points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look with a

certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the division is

practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a really

general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes focusing

in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a domain can

deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built upon. On

the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and actually

start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start having

problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already fits, how

could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us. But we

forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer things

like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself back and

forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually feel the

life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better to let

go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one life,

right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys, sorrows,

sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a person

can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own

life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits." Sometimes

this means focusing on particular domains where there is stickiness, a

grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And, sometimes it

means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape of the

whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a hand on

both views when needed.

warm regards,

Joanne Hersh wrote:

> *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own values? I

> actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than trying

> to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries like:

> "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth. That

> feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do in grade

> school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what matters,

what

> I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one person

> and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily in one

> context over another--some of us are more community focused and some

> more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can

> figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this

> could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question later

> on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your values?".

> But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for true values.

>

> Joanne*

>

> ronleiferaol wrote:

>>

>> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light on the

>> ACT values issue:

>>

>> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be?

When

>> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."

>>

>> Ron Leifer

>>

>

[Guest guest]

By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness

found when we tease out our values and hone in on certain domains where things

are sticky or feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes

later with fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated

categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it potentially

misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the spontaneity and integrity from

which values emerge: the saying yes about who we are and what we really care

about, about all of this that you so eloquently speak to here.

I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

Peace,

Joanne

wrote:

Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the worksheets

in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not

terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be done that

way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation, not the

endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the topic in

the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily divided--we say

so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the various

points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look with a

certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the division is

practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a really

general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes focusing

in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a domain can

deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built upon. On

the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and actually

start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start having

problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already fits, how

could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us. But we

forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer things

like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself back and

forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually feel the

life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better to let

go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one life,

right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys, sorrows,

sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a person

can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own

life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits." Sometimes

this means focusing on particular domains where there is stickiness, a

grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And, sometimes it

means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape of the

whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a hand on

both views when needed.

warm regards,

Joanne Hersh wrote:

> *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own values?

I

> actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than trying

> to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries like:

> "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth. That

> feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do in grade

> school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what matters, what

> I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one person

> and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily in one

> context over another--some of us are more community focused and some

> more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can

> figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this

> could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question later

> on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your values?".

> But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for true values.

>

> Joanne*

>

> ronleiferaol wrote:

>>

>> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light on

the

>> ACT values issue:

>>

>> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be? When

>> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."

>>

>> Ron Leifer

>>

>

[Guest guest]

I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final arbitrator. RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and implys that I am making and using verbal connections that I have made. Thanks to personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing their values are going to be the same, especially since not everyone is going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the "observer self" is learning to see the general framework that I use to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing that I tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I know but at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is ok that "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other people. I think it also helps me to determine my course of action without being trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always a bit surprised to note emotional

involvement in simply deciding to do something other than what my wife is doing because I decide that I am too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife more than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold for me. Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable. Joanne Hersh wrote: *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we tease out our values and hone in on certain domains where things are sticky or feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later with fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the spontaneity and integrity from which values emerge: the saying

yes about who we are and what we really care about, about all of this that you so eloquently speak to here. I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!Peace,Joanne* wrote:> Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the worksheets> in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not> terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be done that> way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation, not the> endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the topic in> the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.>> http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004 > >> there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily divided--we say> so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the various> points on the hexaflex are

arbitrarily divided. If you look with a> certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the division is> practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a really> general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes focusing> in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a domain can> deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built upon. On> the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and actually> start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start having> problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already fits, how> could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us. But we> forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer things> like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself back and> forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually feel the>

life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better to let> go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one life,> right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys, sorrows,> sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.>> I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my> conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a person> can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own> life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits." Sometimes> this means focusing on particular domains where there is stickiness, a> grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And, sometimes it> means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape of the> whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a hand on> both views when needed.>> warm regards,>

>> Joanne Hersh wrote:> > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own values? I> > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than trying> > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries like:> > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth. That> > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do in grade> > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what matters, what> > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one person> > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily in one> > context over another--some of us are more community focused and some> > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can> > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this> > could be posed as a separate conscious

and deliberate question later> > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your values?".> > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for true values.> >> > Joanne*> >> > ronleifer@... wrote:> >>> >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light on the> >> ACT values issue:> >>> >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be? When> >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."> >>> >> Ron Leifer> >>> >>> __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Thanks (or is it ?).

The temperature analogy is a good one. The way to values is really as simple

and as natural as this after all. I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate

premise of our experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive

thing about ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've

known for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended moments--when

I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate with a "1,

2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I prefer to just keep

asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms of my identified values.

That's more than enough. I'm finding more creative and spontaneous answers

spring forth from this place. (But then I've never been a formula or cookbook

approach person). I know what my values are when I just sit quietly and

when I'm not trying to discuss ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature

than you. I just am.

In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail discussion of values

(replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can prove distracting.

To be candid, the books and the listserve and 's Telecourse on ACT

have taught me hands down much more than have my individual sessions with

an ACT therapist (and these don't come cheap). When I meditate and journal

and look in the mirror and remain open and honest to what I see and hear,

I know exactly what I care about. Someone else said there is nothing magical

or mysterious or mystical about values. They're just what you happen to care

about. Works for me!

Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit like the

good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all along").

Peace,

Joanne

Williston wrote:

I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it

is a big fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final arbitrator.

RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and implys that I

am making and using verbal connections that I have made. Thanks to personal

experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing their values are going

to be the same, especially since not everyone is going to value the same

things. I think part of accepting the "observer self" is learning to see

the general framework that I use to interact with my values. I like to compare

it to realizing that I tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some

people I know but at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways,

it is ok that "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other

people. I think it also helps me to determine my course of action without

being trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always a bit surprised

to note emotional involvement in simply deciding to do something other

than what my wife is doing because I decide that I am too hot. Some days,

I decide that I value the time with my wife more than my own comfort, and

some days she decides to be cold for me. Other days. . . we would just rather

be comfortable.

Joanne Hersh wrote:

*By the way, I certainly

appreciate the fullness found when we tease out

our values and hone in on certain domains where things are sticky or

feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later with

fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated

categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it

potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the spontaneity and

integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we are and

what we really care about, about all of this that you so eloquently

speak to here.

I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

Peace,

Joanne*

wrote:

> Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the worksheets

> in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not

> terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be done

that

> way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation, not the

> endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the topic

in

> the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

>

> http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

>

>

> there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily divided--we

say

> so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the various

> points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look with a

> certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the division

is

> practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a really

> general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes focusing

> in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a domain can

> deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built upon.

On

> the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and actually

> start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start having

> problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already fits, how

> could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us. But we

> forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer things

> like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself back

and

> forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually feel the

> life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better to

let

> go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one life,

> right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys, sorrows,

> sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

>

> I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

> conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a person

> can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own

> life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits." Sometimes

> this means focusing on particular domains where there is stickiness,

a

> grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And, sometimes it

> means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape of the

> whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a hand on

> both views when needed.

>

> warm regards,

>

>

> Joanne Hersh wrote:

> > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own values?

I

> > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than

trying

> > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries

like:

> > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth.

That

> > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do in

grade

> > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what matters,

what

> > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one

person

> > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily in one

> > context over another--some of us are more community focused and

some

> > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can

> > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this

> > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question

later

> > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your values?".

> > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for true

values.

> >

> > Joanne*

> >

> > ronleiferaol wrote:

> >>

> >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light

on the

> >> ACT values issue:

> >>

> >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be?

When

> >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."

> >>

> >> Ron Leifer

> >>

> >

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot of the premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but the path of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are likely to be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work yourself as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying to be therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely free. If you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching yourselves improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.Joanne Hersh wrote: *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is a good one. The way to values is really as simple and as

natural as this after all. I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing about ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've known for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended moments--when I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate with a "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I prefer to just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms of my identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more creative and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But then I've never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to discuss ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I just am. In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail

discussion of values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can prove distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and 's Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than have my individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come cheap). When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain open and honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about. Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or mystical about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works for me!Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit like the good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all along").Peace,Joanne* Williston wrote:> I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final arbitrator. > RFT

suggests to me that simply using language requires and implys that > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made. Thanks to > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing their > values are going to be the same, especially since not everyone is > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the > "observer self" is learning to see the general framework that I use > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing that I > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I know but > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is ok that > "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other people. I > think it also helps me to determine my course of action without being > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always a bit > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding to do

> something other than what my wife is doing because I decide that I am > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife more > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold for me. > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.>>> >> */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:>> *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we> tease out> our values and hone in on certain domains where things are sticky or> feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later with> fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated> categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it> potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the> spontaneity and> integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we> are and> what we really care about, about all of this that you so eloquently> speak to here.>> I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!>> Peace,> Joanne*>> wrote:>> > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the> worksheets> > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not> > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be> done that> > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation, not the> > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the> topic in> > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.> >> > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004> >> >> > there is

no question that the categories are arbitrarily> divided--we say> > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the> various> > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look with a> > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the> division is> > practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a> really> > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes> focusing> > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a> domain can> > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built> upon. On> > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and actually> > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start having> > problems with how you can fit it all

together. (It already fits, how> > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us. But we> > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer> things> > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself> back and> > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually> feel the> > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better> to let> > go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one> life,> > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys, sorrows,> > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.> >> > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my> > conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a> person> > can say

yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own> > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits."> Sometimes> > this means focusing on particular domains where there is> stickiness, a> > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,> sometimes it> > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape of the> > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a hand on> > both views when needed.> >> > warm regards,> > > >> > Joanne Hersh wrote:> > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own> values? I> > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than> trying> > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with

boundaries> like:> > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth.> That> > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do> in grade> > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what> matters, what> > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one> person> > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily in one> > > context over another--some of us are more community focused> and some> > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But we can> > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or perhaps this> > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question> later> > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of

your values?".> > > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for> true values.> > >> > > Joanne*> > >> > > ronleifer@... wrote:> > >>> > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light> on the> > >> ACT values issue:> > >>> > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be?> When> > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."> > >>> > >> Ron Leifer> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> __________________________________________________>

[Guest guest]

This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting

and creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I don't

know anything about improv. What is it specifically about improv that you

think might resonate with me more? What is it that I have said makes you

consider this?

Peace,

Joanne

Williston wrote:

I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational acting

training based on what you said in this email. A lot of the premises are

the same or closely related to ACT theory, but the path of discovery is more

organic than most therapy sessions are likely to be (but you will have to

do a lot of the self-discovery work yourself as they tend to be organic largely

because they aren't trying to be therapy). Depending on where you live and

how hard you look, this could be more expensive than years of therapy, or

absolutely free. If you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching

yourselves improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.

Joanne Hersh wrote:

*Thanks (or is it

?). The temperature analogy is a good one.

The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this after all.

I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our

experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing about

ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've known

for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended moments--when

I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate with a

"1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I prefer to

just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms of my

identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more creative

and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But then I've

never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my

values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to discuss

ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I just am.

In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail discussion of

values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can prove

distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and 's

Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than have my

individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come cheap).

When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain open and

honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.

Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or mystical

about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works for me!

Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit like the

good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all along").

Peace,

Joanne

*

Williston wrote:

> I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big

> fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final arbitrator.

> RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and implys that

> I am making and using verbal connections that I have made. Thanks to

> personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing their

> values are going to be the same, especially since not everyone is

> going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the

> "observer self" is learning to see the general framework that I use

> to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing that I

> tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I know but

> at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is ok that

> "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other people. I

> think it also helps me to determine my course of action without being

> trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always a bit

> surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding to do

> something other than what my wife is doing because I decide that I am

> too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife more

> than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold for me.

> Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.

>

>

>

>

> */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>

> *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we

> tease out

> our values and hone in on certain domains where things are sticky

or

> feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later

with

> fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated

> categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it

> potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the

> spontaneity and

> integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we

> are and

> what we really care about, about all of this that you so eloquently

> speak to here.

>

> I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

>

> Peace,

> Joanne*

>

> wrote:

>

> > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the

> worksheets

> > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and

not

> > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to

be

> done that

> > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,

not the

> > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of

the

> topic in

> > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

> >

> > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

> >

> >

> > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily

> divided--we say

> > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense,

the

> various

> > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look

with a

> > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the

> division is

> > practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes

a

> really

> > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes

> focusing

> > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a

> domain can

> > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built

> upon. On

> > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and

actually

> > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start

having

> > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already

fits, how

> > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us.

But we

> > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer

> things

> > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself

> back and

> > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually

> feel the

> > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better

> to let

> > go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one

> life,

> > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys,

sorrows,

> > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

> >

> > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in

my

> > conversations about various life domains is a whole life that

a

> person

> > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in

my own

> > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits."

> Sometimes

> > this means focusing on particular domains where there is

> stickiness, a

> > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,

> sometimes it

> > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape

of the

> > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put

a hand on

> > both views when needed.

> >

> > warm regards,

> >

> >

> > Joanne Hersh wrote:

> > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your

own

> values? I

> > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values

than

> trying

> > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries

> like:

> > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so

forth.

> That

> > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used

to do

> in grade

> > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what

> matters, what

> > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out

to one

> person

> > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily

in one

> > > context over another--some of us are more community focused

> and some

> > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on.

But we can

> > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or

perhaps this

> > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate

question

> later

> > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your

values?".

> > > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest

for

> true values.

> > >

> > > Joanne*

> > >

> > > ronleiferaol wrote:

> > >>

> > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might

shed light

> on the

> > >> ACT values issue:

> > >>

> > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you

want to be?

> When

> > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."

> > >>

> > >> Ron Leifer

> > >>

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Nope, still , not .

peace

k

Joanne Hersh wrote:

> *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and

> creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I

> don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically about improv

> that you think might resonate with me more? What is it that I have

> said makes you consider this?

>

> Peace,

> Joanne*

>

> Williston wrote:

>>

>> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational

>> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot of the

>> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but the path

>> of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are likely to

>> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work yourself

>> as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying to be

>> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this

>> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely free. If

>> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching yourselves

>> improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.

>>

>>

>>

>> */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>>

>> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is a

>> good one.

>> The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this

>> after all.

>> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our

>> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing

>> about

>> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've

>> known

>> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

>> moments--when

>> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate

>> with a

>> " 1, 2, 3 " next to spirituality or community and so forth. I

>> prefer to

>> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms

>> of my

>> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more

>> creative

>> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But then I've

>> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my

>> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to

>> discuss

>> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I

>> just am.

>>

>> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail

>> discussion of

>> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can

>> prove

>> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and 's

>> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than have my

>> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come

>> cheap).

>> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain

>> open and

>> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.

>> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or mystical

>> about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works

>> for me!

>>

>> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit

>> like the

>> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all

>> along " ).

>>

>> Peace,

>> Joanne

>> *

>>

>> Williston wrote:

>>

>> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big

>> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final

>> arbitrator.

>> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and

>> implys that

>> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made.

>> Thanks to

>> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing their

>> > values are going to be the same, especially since not everyone is

>> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the

>> > " observer self " is learning to see the general framework that I

>> use

>> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing

>> that I

>> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I

>> know but

>> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is

>> ok that

>> > " cold " for me is a different category than it is for other

>> people. I

>> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action without

>> being

>> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always a bit

>> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding to do

>> > something other than what my wife is doing because I decide

>> that I am

>> > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife

>> more

>> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold for me.

>> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>> >

>> > *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we

>> > tease out

>> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things are

>> sticky or

>> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later

>> with

>> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated

>> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it

>> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the

>> > spontaneity and

>> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we

>> > are and

>> > what we really care about, about all of this that you so eloquently

>> > speak to here.

>> >

>> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

>> >

>> > Peace,

>> > Joanne*

>> >

>> > wrote:

>> >

>> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the

>> > worksheets

>> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not

>> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be

>> > done that

>> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,

>> not the

>> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the

>> > topic in

>> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

>> > >

>> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily

>> > divided--we say

>> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the

>> > various

>> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look

>> with a

>> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the

>> > division is

>> > > practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a

>> > really

>> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes

>> > focusing

>> > > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a

>> > domain can

>> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built

>> > upon. On

>> > > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and

>> actually

>> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start

>> having

>> > > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already

>> fits, how

>> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us.

>> But we

>> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer

>> > things

>> > > like " values in conflict " and an endless argument with oneself

>> > back and

>> > > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually

>> > feel the

>> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better

>> > to let

>> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one

>> > life,

>> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys,

>> sorrows,

>> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

>> > >

>> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

>> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a

>> > person

>> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own

>> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that " fits. "

>> > Sometimes

>> > > this means focusing on particular domains where there is

>> > stickiness, a

>> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,

>> > sometimes it

>> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape

>> of the

>> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a

>> hand on

>> > > both views when needed.

>> > >

>> > > warm regards,

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:

>> > > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own

>> > values? I

>> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than

>> > trying

>> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries

>> > like:

>> > > > " Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship " and so forth.

>> > That

>> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do

>> > in grade

>> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what

>> > matters, what

>> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one

>> > person

>> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily

>> in one

>> > > > context over another--some of us are more community focused

>> > and some

>> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But

>> we can

>> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or

>> perhaps this

>> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question

>> > later

>> > > > on-- i.e, " Where do you want to focus the energy of your

>> values? " .

>> > > > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for

>> > true values.

>> > > >

>> > > > Joanne*

>> > > >

>> > > > ronleifer@... wrote:

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light

>> > on the

>> > > >> ACT values issue:

>> > > >>

>> > > >> " First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be?

>> > When

>> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do. "

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Ron Leifer

>> > > >>

>> > > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > __________________________________________________

>> >

[Guest guest]

Apologies !--the first and last names of

Williston are so close to the name (in the same thread even)

it's very confusing to me! In any case, I'd still love an answer to the

questions I asked here of you if you don't mind. Inquiring minds would like

to know!

Thanks,

Joanne

wrote:

Nope, still , not .

peace

k

Joanne Hersh wrote:

> *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and

> creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I

> don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically about improv

> that you think might resonate with me more? What is it that I have

> said makes you consider this?

>

> Peace,

> Joanne*

>

> Williston wrote:

>>

>> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational

>> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot of

the

>> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but the

path

>> of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are likely

to

>> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work yourself

>> as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying to

be

>> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this

>> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely free.

If

>> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching yourselves

>> improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.

>>

>>

>>

>> */Joanne Hersh /*

wrote:

>>

>> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is

a

>> good one.

>> The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this

>> after all.

>> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of

our

>> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing

>> about

>> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and

I've

>> known

>> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

>> moments--when

>> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate

>> with a

>> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I

>> prefer to

>> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in

terms

>> of my

>> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more

>> creative

>> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But

then I've

>> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what

my

>> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying

to

>> discuss

>> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you.

I

>> just am.

>>

>> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail

>> discussion of

>> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that

it can

>> prove

>> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and

's

>> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than

have my

>> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't

come

>> cheap).

>> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain

>> open and

>> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.

>> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or

mystical

>> about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works

>> for me!

>>

>> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a

bit

>> like the

>> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it

all

>> along").

>>

>> Peace,

>> Joanne

>> *

>>

>> Williston wrote:

>>

>> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is

a big

>> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final

>> arbitrator.

>> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires

and

>> implys that

>> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made.

>> Thanks to

>> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing

their

>> > values are going to be the same, especially since not

everyone is

>> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting

the

>> > "observer self" is learning to see the general framework

that I

>> use

>> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing

>> that I

>> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people

I

>> know but

>> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways,

it is

>> ok that

>> > "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other

>> people. I

>> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action

without

>> being

>> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always

a bit

>> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding

to do

>> > something other than what my wife is doing because I decide

>> that I am

>> > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with

my wife

>> more

>> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold

for me.

>> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>> >

>> > *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found

when we

>> > tease out

>> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things

are

>> sticky or

>> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes

later

>> with

>> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these

delineated

>> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming

--it

>> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the

>> > spontaneity and

>> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about

who we

>> > are and

>> > what we really care about, about all of this that you

so eloquently

>> > speak to here.

>> >

>> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

>> >

>> > Peace,

>> > Joanne*

>> >

>> > wrote:

>> >

>> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire

or the

>> > worksheets

>> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty

rote and not

>> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily

need to be

>> > done that

>> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,

>> not the

>> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment

of the

>> > topic in

>> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness

book.

>> > >

>> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily

>> > divided--we say

>> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same

sense, the

>> > various

>> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If

you look

>> with a

>> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values

work, the

>> > division is

>> > > practical at times and not at others. For example,

sometimes a

>> > really

>> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous.

Sometimes

>> > focusing

>> > > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale

within a

>> > domain can

>> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that

can be built

>> > upon. On

>> > > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously,

and

>> actually

>> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks,

you start

>> having

>> > > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It

already

>> fits, how

>> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't

draw us.

>> But we

>> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You

start to suffer

>> > things

>> > > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument

with oneself

>> > back and

>> > > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you

can actually

>> > feel the

>> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these,

it is better

>> > to let

>> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have

one life--one

>> > life,

>> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains,

joys,

>> sorrows,

>> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

>> > >

>> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling

for in my

>> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole

life that a

>> > person

>> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how

it is in my own

>> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life

that "fits."

>> > Sometimes

>> > > this means focusing on particular domains where there

is

>> > stickiness, a

>> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment.

And,

>> > sometimes it

>> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling

the shape

>> of the

>> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able

to put a

>> hand on

>> > > both views when needed.

>> > >

>> > > warm regards,

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:

>> > > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming

your own

>> > values? I

>> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing

values than

>> > trying

>> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet

with boundaries

>> > like:

>> > > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship"

and so forth.

>> > That

>> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise

I used to do

>> > in grade

>> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision,

what

>> > matters, what

>> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole

them out to one

>> > person

>> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge

more readily

>> in one

>> > > > context over another--some of us are more community

focused

>> > and some

>> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and

so on. But

>> we can

>> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values.

Or

>> perhaps this

>> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate

question

>> > later

>> > > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy

of your

>> values?".

>> > > > But melding the two in my view detracts from

the quest for

>> > true values.

>> > > >

>> > > > Joanne*

>> > > >

>> > > > ronleiferaol

wrote:

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that

might shed light

>> > on the

>> > > >> ACT values issue:

>> > > >>

>> > > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person

you want to be?

>> > When

>> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all

you do."

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Ron Leifer

>> > > >>

>> > > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > __________________________________________________

>> >

[Guest guest]

LOL-- You are indeed !!

Your email address from this message says to me indicates as

such as does your name in my "attachment box" as does the name here to your

reply, which says: " Wrote"

And yet, you have the nerve to insult me and tell me:

"Nope, still , not .".

You are not good at being an impostor. I suggest if you decide to continue

on this path of deception, you learn more about the way email works.

For pete's sake, we are talking VALUES here--have you considered honesty

and integrity?!

Peace to you too,

Joanne

wrote:

Nope, still , not .

peace

k

Joanne Hersh wrote:

> *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and

> creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I

> don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically about improv

> that you think might resonate with me more? What is it that I have

> said makes you consider this?

>

> Peace,

> Joanne*

>

> Williston wrote:

>>

>> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational

>> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot of the

>> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but the path

>> of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are likely to

>> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work yourself

>> as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying

to be

>> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this

>> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely free. If

>> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching yourselves

>> improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.

>>

>>

>>

>> */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>>

>> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is a

>> good one.

>> The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this

>> after all.

>> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our

>> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive

thing

>> about

>> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've

>> known

>> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

>> moments--when

>> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and

rate

>> with a

>> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth.

I

>> prefer to

>> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms

>> of my

>> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more

>> creative

>> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But then I've

>> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know

what my

>> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to

>> discuss

>> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I

>> just am.

>>

>> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail

>> discussion of

>> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in

that it can

>> prove

>> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and 's

>> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than have my

>> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come

>> cheap).

>> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain

>> open and

>> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care

about.

>> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or mystical

>> about values. They're just what you happen to care about.

Works

>> for me!

>>

>> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit

>> like the

>> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all

>> along").

>>

>> Peace,

>> Joanne

>> *

>>

>> Williston wrote:

>>

>> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big

>> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final

>> arbitrator.

>> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and

>> implys that

>> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have

made.

>> Thanks to

>> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing their

>> > values are going to be the same, especially since not everyone is

>> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the

>> > "observer self" is learning to see the general framework that I

>> use

>> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing

>> that I

>> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I

>> know but

>> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is

>> ok that

>> > "cold" for me is a different category than it is for

other

>> people. I

>> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action without

>> being

>> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am

always a bit

>> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding to do

>> > something other than what my wife is doing because I

decide

>> that I am

>> > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife

>> more

>> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be

cold for me.

>> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>> >

>> > *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we

>> > tease out

>> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things are

>> sticky or

>> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later

>> with

>> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated

>> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it

>> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the

>> > spontaneity and

>> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we

>> > are and

>> > what we really care about, about all of this that you so eloquently

>> > speak to here.

>> >

>> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

>> >

>> > Peace,

>> > Joanne*

>> >

>> > wrote:

>> >

>> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the

>> > worksheets

>> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not

>> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be

>> > done that

>> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,

>> not the

>> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the

>> > topic in

>> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

>> > >

>> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily

>> > divided--we say

>> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the

>> > various

>> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided.

If you look

>> with a

>> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the

>> > division is

>> > > practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a

>> > really

>> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes

>> > focusing

>> > > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a

>> > domain can

>> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built

>> > upon. On

>> > > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and

>> actually

>> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start

>> having

>> > > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already

>> fits, how

>> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us.

>> But we

>> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer

>> > things

>> > > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself

>> > back and

>> > > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually

>> > feel the

>> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better

>> > to let

>> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have one life--one

>> > life,

>> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys,

>> sorrows,

>> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

>> > >

>> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

>> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a

>> > person

>> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own

>> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits."

>> > Sometimes

>> > > this means focusing on particular domains where

there is

>> > stickiness, a

>> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,

>> > sometimes it

>> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape

>> of the

>> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a

>> hand on

>> > > both views when needed.

>> > >

>> > > warm regards,

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:

>> > > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own

>> > values? I

>> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of

viewing values than

>> > trying

>> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries

>> > like:

>> > > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth.

>> > That

>> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do

>> > in grade

>> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger

vision, what

>> > matters, what

>> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one

>> > person

>> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily

>> in one

>> > > > context over another--some of us are more community focused

>> > and some

>> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused

and so on. But

>> we can

>> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our

values. Or

>> perhaps this

>> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and

deliberate question

>> > later

>> > > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your

>> values?".

>> > > > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for

>> > true values.

>> > > >

>> > > > Joanne*

>> > > >

>> > > > ronleiferaol wrote:

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus

that might shed light

>> > on the

>> > > >> ACT values issue:

>> > > >>

>> > > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of

person you want to be?

>> > When

>> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Ron Leifer

>> > > >>

>> > > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > __________________________________________________

>> >

[Guest guest]

Boy, I'm tempted to just not reply to this and see how far it goes. . but that would be the part of me that "values" my own amusement over the greater good of society in general!The basis of my suggestion is that you wrote:The truth is I know what my values are and I've> >> known> >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended> >> moments--when> >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate> >> with a> >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth.I might not suggest this approach for someone who was still struggling to get in touch with their values (it would depend on a lot of variables that I couldn't even begin to go over). However, seeing as you seem to find some insight from "inuitive" approaches to self-discovery, improv may be the way for you!Essentially, to do improv, you have to "get out of your mind" (I have

heard that somewhere before.. . hmmm. . .) and just let your "sub-conscious" (basically the part of you that already knows your values) dictate your actions. It is still acting, but you don't need a dramatic flair to do it. As the directors say, "Life is improv. No one gave you a script as you got out of bed today." What I have discovered in my limited experience directing small groups is that a person's true self (the one that they try to hide) comes out in all of their characters. As a path to find values, we find that some people ALWAYS try to build up the other player. They aren't concerned so much about who is "the boss" in the "office scene." They could be the doctor, the patient, or the nurse in the hospital, but they always try to help the other people be the "good guy," "the smart one," or "the hero." Here, potentially, we have revealed a value instead of a problem. I do this, and I distill from this that I truly want to make the world a

better place one person at a time.Essentially, the relevant part of improv for RFT is that you create the reality of each scene one line at a time. There is potential (and if you do improv long enough, the requirement) that you bend/break/rewrite the basic laws of the universe to make a scene work. For example, someone may make an "error" of being "shocked" by discovering that he has 5 fingers! Well, this is now a shock to everyone (you have to support your fellow players or it all falls apart), and you either discover that this 5 fingered man is the ONLY 5 fingered person they know, or terrible mutations are running rampant, or. .. <insert your own universe here>. This essentially meanst that all of your verbal relationships come into question and you have to learn to be able to set them aside instantly to make a scene work. Even in playing the part of a character diametrically opposed to your values, you will find that you were the "bad guy," no

matter if the rest of the players made you out to be the "good guy." You yourself judged that your actions did not fit your values, even if you manage to portray the character convincingly.Again, not only do you find your values, but you find those hidden things that you didn't realize got in the way of living by your values. This is the part where I think you still need other people to help you find which is which. Someone could just as easily make others important because they were fearful or some other reason, and you have to spend the time exploring this sort of thing to sort it out.There are a lot of other corollaries, but I'm writing an email, not a thesis. So I'll stop there.Joanne Hersh wrote: *LOL-- You are indeed !! Your email address from this message says

to me indicates as such as does your name in my "attachment box" as does the name here to your reply, which says: " Wrote"And yet, you have the nerve to insult me and tell me:/"Nope, still , not ."./You are not good at being an impostor. I suggest if you decide to continue on this path of deception, you learn more about the way email works. For pete's sake, we are talking VALUES here--have you considered honesty and integrity?!Peace to you too,Joanne* wrote:> Nope, still , not .>> peace> k>> Joanne Hersh wrote:> > *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and> > creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I> > don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically about improv> > that you think might resonate with me more? What is it

that I have> > said makes you consider this?> >> > Peace,> > Joanne*> >> > Williston wrote:> >>> >> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational> >> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot of the> >> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but the path> >> of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are likely to> >> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work yourself> >> as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying to be> >> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this> >> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely free. If> >> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching yourselves> >> improv if you like, although

that is pretty hard to do IMHO.> >>> >> > >>> >> */Joanne Hersh >/* wrote:> >>> >> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is a> >> good one.> >> The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this> >> after all.> >> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our> >> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing> >> about> >> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've> >> known> >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended> >> moments--when> >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate> >> with a> >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I>

>> prefer to> >> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms> >> of my> >> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more> >> creative> >> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But then I've> >> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my> >> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to> >> discuss> >> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I> >> just am.> >>> >> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail> >> discussion of> >> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can> >> prove> >> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and 's> >> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much

more than have my> >> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come> >> cheap).> >> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain> >> open and> >> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.> >> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or mystical> >> about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works> >> for me!> >>> >> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit> >> like the> >> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all> >> along").> >>> >> Peace,> >> Joanne> >> *> >>> >> Williston wrote:> >>> >> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big>

>> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final> >> arbitrator.> >> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and> >> implys that> >> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made.> >> Thanks to> >> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing their> >> > values are going to be the same, especially since not everyone is> >> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the> >> > "observer self" is learning to see the general framework that I> >> use> >> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing> >> that I> >> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I> >> know but> >> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it

is> >> ok that> >> > "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other> >> people. I> >> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action without> >> being> >> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always a bit> >> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding to do> >> > something other than what my wife is doing because I decide> >> that I am> >> > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife> >> more> >> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold for me.> >> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:> >> >> >> >

*By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we> >> > tease out> >> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things are> >> sticky or> >> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later> >> with> >> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these delineated> >> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming --it> >> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the> >> > spontaneity and> >> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we> >> > are and> >> > what we really care about, about all of this that you so eloquently> >> > speak to here.> >> >> >> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!> >> >>

>> > Peace,> >> > Joanne*> >> >> >> > wrote:> >> >> >> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the> >> > worksheets> >> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote and not> >> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need to be> >> > done that> >> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,> >> not the> >> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment of the> >> > topic in> >> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.> >> > >> >> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004 > > >> > >> >> > >>

>> > > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily> >> > divided--we say> >> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same sense, the> >> > various> >> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look> >> with a> >> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the> >> > division is> >> > > practical at times and not at others. For example, sometimes a> >> > really> >> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes> >> > focusing> >> > > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a> >> > domain can> >> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be built> >> > upon. On> >> > > the other hand,

if one takes the categories seriously, and> >> actually> >> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start> >> having> >> > > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already> >> fits, how> >> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us.> >> But we> >> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to suffer> >> > things> >> > > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with oneself> >> > back and> >> > > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually> >> > feel the> >> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is better> >> > to let> >> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have one

life--one> >> > life,> >> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys,> >> sorrows,> >> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.> >> > >> >> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my> >> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole life that a> >> > person> >> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in my own> >> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that "fits."> >> > Sometimes> >> > > this means focusing on particular domains where there is> >> > stickiness, a> >> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,> >> > sometimes it> >> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling

the shape> >> of the> >> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a> >> hand on> >> > > both views when needed.> >> > >> >> > > warm regards,> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:> >> > > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own> >> > values? I> >> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than> >> > trying> >> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with boundaries> >> > like:> >> > > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so forth.> >> > That> >> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used to do> >> > in

grade> >> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what> >> > matters, what> >> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out to one> >> > person> >> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily> >> in one> >> > > > context over another--some of us are more community focused> >> > and some> >> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But> >> we can> >> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or> >> perhaps this> >> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question> >> > later> >> > > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your> >> values?".> >> > >

> But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for> >> > true values.> >> > > >> >> > > > Joanne*> >> > > >> >> > > > ronleifer@... wrote:> >> > > >>> >> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light> >> > on the> >> > > >> ACT values issue:> >> > > >>> >> > > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be?> >> > When> >> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."> >> > > >>> >> > > >> Ron Leifer> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> >> > __________________________________________________> >> >

[Guest guest]

Boy, I'm tempted to tell the truth, and since that's

my value, I will. I really don't care if you are or

Williston or both. Many here use pseudo names and might even have two emails--although

I don't recall anyone using two separate personas, and I don't recall anyone

posting on another's email server. The issue here is more about trustworthiness

and common courtesy.

If you truly are as caring about the 'greater good' over your own selfish

amusement, you might have taken the time to clear things up some, to address

rather than continue to ignore outright this obvious discrepancy that was

brought to your attention. You flatly denied you were all the

while the name showed up all over the screen--including to the

right where the poster's name is listed. At the point the onus is on you

to help clear the air. But you didn't. Let's say you really are

Williston using 's email server (unlikely as name structure

similarity is uncanny), you might have simply offered this. And if you are

really , you might have come clean after being exposed as such.

Your continued insistence on not offering any explanation privately or public

ally borders on arrogant.

You might have also shown your professed value for the "greater good" by

simply answering my question when I first asked it, instead of choosing

to ignore it outright. The irony of all of this of course is that you brought

up acting here. You may want to brush up more on your own classes, as I'm

afraid your attempt at feigning nobility is not very convincing. Interesting

(and bordering on the ridiculous) to note that if you aren't ,

the real has yet to weigh on this discussion despite being made

aware of the same.

Williston wrote:

Boy, I'm tempted to just not reply to this and see how far it goes.

.. but that would be the part of me that "values" my own amusement over the

greater good of society in general!

The basis of my suggestion is that you wrote:

The truth is I know what my values are and I've

> >> known

> >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

> >> moments--when

> >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate

> >> with a

> >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth.

I might not suggest this approach for someone who was still struggling

to get in touch with their values (it would depend on a lot of variables

that I couldn't even begin to go over). However, seeing as you seem to find

some insight from "inuitive" approaches to self-discovery, improv may be

the way for you!

Essentially, to do improv, you have to "get out of your mind" (I have heard that somewhere before.. . hmmm. . .) and just let your "sub-conscious"

(basically the part of you that already knows your values) dictate your

actions. It is still acting, but you don't need a dramatic flair to do it.

As the directors say, "Life is improv. No one gave you a script as you got

out of bed today." What I have discovered in my limited experience directing

small groups is that a person's true self (the one that they try to hide)

comes out in all of their characters.

As a path to find values, we find that some people ALWAYS try to build

up the other player. They aren't concerned so much about who is "the boss"

in the "office scene." They could be the doctor, the patient, or the nurse

in the hospital, but they always try to help the other people be the "good

guy," "the smart one," or "the hero." Here, potentially, we have revealed

a value instead of a problem. I do this, and I distill from this that I

truly want to make the world a better place one person at a time.

Essentially, the relevant part of improv for RFT is that you create the reality of each scene one line at a time. There is potential (and if you do

improv long enough, the requirement) that you bend/break/rewrite the basic laws of the universe to make a scene work. For example, someone may make an

"error" of being "shocked" by discovering that he has 5 fingers! Well, this

is now a shock to everyone (you have to support your fellow players or it

all falls apart), and you either discover that this 5 fingered man is the

ONLY 5 fingered person they know, or terrible mutations are running rampant,

or. .. <insert your own universe here>. This essentially meanst that

all of your verbal relationships come into question and you have to learn

to be able to set them aside instantly to make a scene work. Even in playing

the part of a character diametrically opposed to your values, you will find

that you were the "bad guy," no matter if the rest of the players made you

out to be the "good guy." You yourself judged that your actions did not fit

your values, even if you manage to portray the character convincingly.

Again, not only do you find your values, but you find those hidden things

that you didn't realize got in the way of living by your values. This is

the part where I think you still need other people to help you find which

is which. Someone could just as easily make others important because they

were fearful or some other reason, and you have to spend the time exploring

this sort of thing to sort it out.

There are a lot of other corollaries, but I'm writing an email, not a thesis.

So I'll stop there.

Joanne Hersh wrote:

*LOL-- You are indeed

!! Your email address from this message

says to me indicates as such as does your name in my

"attachment box" as does the name here to your reply, which says: "

Wrote"

And yet, you have the nerve to insult me and tell me:

/"Nope, still , not .".

/

You are not good at being an impostor. I suggest if you decide to

continue on this path of deception, you learn more about the way email

works.

For pete's sake, we are talking VALUES here--have you considered

honesty and integrity?!

Peace to you too,

Joanne

*

wrote:

> Nope, still , not .

>

> peace

> k

>

> Joanne Hersh wrote:

> > *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and

> > creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I

> > don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically about

improv

> > that you think might resonate with me more? What is it that

I have

> > said makes you consider this?

> >

> > Peace,

> > Joanne*

> >

> > Williston wrote:

> >>

> >> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational

> >> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot

of the

> >> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but

the path

> >> of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are

likely to

> >> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work

yourself

> >> as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying

to be

> >> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look,

this

> >> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely

free. If

> >> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching yourselves

> >> improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> */Joanne Hersh >/* wrote:

> >>

> >> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy

is a

> >> good one.

> >> The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this

> >> after all.

> >> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise

of our

> >> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing

> >> about

> >> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and

I've

> >> known

> >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

> >> moments--when

> >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate

> >> with a

> >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I

> >> prefer to

> >> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in

terms

> >> of my

> >> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more

> >> creative

> >> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But

then I've

> >> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my

> >> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying

to

> >> discuss

> >> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than

you. I

> >> just am.

> >>

> >> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail

> >> discussion of

> >> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can

> >> prove

> >> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and

's

> >> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than

have my

> >> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't

come

> >> cheap).

> >> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain

> >> open and

> >> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.

> >> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious

or mystical

> >> about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works

> >> for me!

> >>

> >> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels

a bit

> >> like the

> >> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it

all

> >> along").

> >>

> >> Peace,

> >> Joanne

> >> *

> >>

> >> Williston wrote:

> >>

> >> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it

is a big

> >> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final

> >> arbitrator.

> >> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires

and

> >> implys that

> >> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made.

> >> Thanks to

> >> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing

their

> >> > values are going to be the same, especially since not

everyone is

> >> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting

the

> >> > "observer self" is learning to see the general framework

that I

> >> use

> >> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to

realizing

> >> that I

> >> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some

people I

> >> know but

> >> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways,

it is

> >> ok that

> >> > "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other

> >> people. I

> >> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action

without

> >> being

> >> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always a bit

> >> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding

to do

> >> > something other than what my wife is doing because I decide

> >> that I am

> >> > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with

my wife

> >> more

> >> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold for me.

> >> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

> >> >

> >> > *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found

when we

> >> > tease out

> >> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things

are

> >> sticky or

> >> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that

comes later

> >> with

> >> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these

delineated

> >> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or overwhelming

--it

> >> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes

the

> >> > spontaneity and

> >> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about

who we

> >> > are and

> >> > what we really care about, about all of this that you

so eloquently

> >> > speak to here.

> >> >

> >> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

> >> >

> >> > Peace,

> >> > Joanne*

> >> >

> >> > wrote:

> >> >

> >> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire

or the

> >> > worksheets

> >> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty

rote and not

> >> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily

need to be

> >> > done that

> >> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,

> >> not the

> >> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my

treatment of the

> >> > topic in

> >> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness

book.

> >> > >

> >> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

>

> >> > >

> >> > >

> >> > > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily

> >> > divided--we say

> >> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the

same sense, the

> >> > various

> >> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look

> >> with a

> >> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values

work, the

> >> > division is

> >> > > practical at times and not at others. For example,

sometimes a

> >> > really

> >> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous.

Sometimes

> >> > focusing

> >> > > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale

within a

> >> > domain can

> >> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that

can be built

> >> > upon. On

> >> > > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously,

and

> >> actually

> >> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks,

you start

> >> having

> >> > > problems with how you can fit it all together.

(It already

> >> fits, how

> >> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they

don't draw us.

> >> But we

> >> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You

start to suffer

> >> > things

> >> > > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument

with oneself

> >> > back and

> >> > > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you

can actually

> >> > feel the

> >> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these,

it is better

> >> > to let

> >> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have

one life--one

> >> > life,

> >> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains,

joys,

> >> sorrows,

> >> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

> >> > >

> >> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling

for in my

> >> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole

life that a

> >> > person

> >> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how

it is in my own

> >> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life

that "fits."

> >> > Sometimes

> >> > > this means focusing on particular domains where there is

> >> > stickiness, a

> >> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment.

And,

> >> > sometimes it

> >> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape

> >> of the

> >> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be

able to put a

> >> hand on

> >> > > both views when needed.

> >> > >

> >> > > warm regards,

> >> > >

> >> > >

> >> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:

> >> > > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming

your own

> >> > values? I

> >> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing values than

> >> > trying

> >> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet

with boundaries

> >> > like:

> >> > > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship"

and so forth.

> >> > That

> >> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise

I used to do

> >> > in grade

> >> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what

> >> > matters, what

> >> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily

dole them out to one

> >> > person

> >> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge

more readily

> >> in one

> >> > > > context over another--some of us are more

community focused

> >> > and some

> >> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But

> >> we can

> >> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or

> >> perhaps this

> >> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate question

> >> > later

> >> > > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the

energy of your

> >> values?".

> >> > > > But melding the two in my view detracts from

the quest for

> >> > true values.

> >> > > >

> >> > > > Joanne*

> >> > > >

> >> > > > ronleiferaol wrote:

> >> > > >>

> >> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed light

> >> > on the

> >> > > >> ACT values issue:

> >> > > >>

> >> > > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want to be?

> >> > When

> >> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in

all you do."

> >> > > >>

> >> > > >> Ron Leifer

> >> > > >>

> >> > > >

> >> > >

> >> > >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > __________________________________________________

> >> >

[Guest guest]

is writing:Joanne, you are correct in that I should have been more clear. I am sorry that I did not write in sooner about this issue, and I should have been more concise and clear. I am not sure where the problem started exactly, but I have noted on Yahoo groups that occasionally the " wrote:" can be confusing if one of the people writing is using Yahoo mail (I am) and the other is not ( is not). This is my second attempt to post this to the group, apparently I missent it the first time. Joanne Hersh wrote: *Boy, I'm tempted to tell the truth, and since that's my value, I will. I really don't care if you are or Williston or both. Many here use pseudo names and might even have two emails--although I don't recall anyone using two separate

personas, and I don't recall anyone posting on another's email server. The issue here is more about trustworthiness and common courtesy.If you truly are as caring about the 'greater good' over your own selfish amusement, you might have taken the time to clear things up some, to address rather than continue to ignore outright this obvious discrepancy that was brought to your attention. You flatly denied you were all the while the name showed up all over the screen--including to the right where the poster's name is listed. At the point the onus is on you to help clear the air. But you didn't. Let's say you really are Williston using 's email server (unlikely as name structure similarity is uncanny), you might have simply offered this. And if you are really , you might have come clean after being exposed as such. Your continued insistence on not

offering any explanation privately or public ally borders on arrogant. You might have also shown your professed value for the "greater good" by simply answering my question when I first asked it, instead of choosing to ignore it outright. The irony of all of this of course is that you brought up acting here. You may want to brush up more on your own classes, as I'm afraid your attempt at feigning nobility is not very convincing. Interesting (and bordering on the ridiculous) to note that if you aren't , the real has yet to weigh on this discussion despite being made aware of the same.* Williston wrote:> Boy, I'm tempted to just not reply to this and see how far it goes. . > but that would be the part of me that "values" my own amusement over > the greater good of society in general!>> The basis of my suggestion is that you wrote:>>

The truth is I know what my values are and I've> > >> known> > >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended> > >> moments--when> > >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate> > >> with a> > >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth.>> I might not suggest this approach for someone who was still struggling > to get in touch with their values (it would depend on a lot of > variables that I couldn't even begin to go over). However, seeing as > you seem to find some insight from "inuitive" approaches to > self-discovery, improv may be the way for you!>> Essentially, to do improv, you have to "get out of your mind" (I have > heard that somewhere before.. . hmmm. . .) and just let your > "sub-conscious" (basically the part of you that already knows your

> values) dictate your actions. It is still acting, but you don't need a > dramatic flair to do it. As the directors say, "Life is improv. No one > gave you a script as you got out of bed today." What I have > discovered in my limited experience directing small groups is that a > person's true self (the one that they try to hide) comes out in all of > their characters.>> As a path to find values, we find that some people ALWAYS try to build > up the other player. They aren't concerned so much about who is "the > boss" in the "office scene." They could be the doctor, the patient, or > the nurse in the hospital, but they always try to help the other > people be the "good guy," "the smart one," or "the hero." Here, > potentially, we have revealed a value instead of a problem. I do this, > and I distill from this that I truly want to make the world a better > place one

person at a time.>> Essentially, the relevant part of improv for RFT is that you create > the reality of each scene one line at a time. There is potential (and > if you do improv long enough, the requirement) that you > bend/break/rewrite the basic laws of the universe to make a scene > work. For example, someone may make an "error" of being "shocked" by > discovering that he has 5 fingers! Well, this is now a shock to > everyone (you have to support your fellow players or it all falls > apart), and you either discover that this 5 fingered man is the ONLY 5 > fingered person they know, or terrible mutations are running rampant, > or. .. . This essentially meanst that > all of your verbal relationships come into question and you have to > learn to be able to set them aside instantly to make a scene work. > Even in playing the part of

a character diametrically opposed to your > values, you will find that you were the "bad guy," no matter if the > rest of the players made you out to be the "good guy." You yourself > judged that your actions did not fit your values, even if you manage > to portray the character convincingly.>> Again, not only do you find your values, but you find those hidden > things that you didn't realize got in the way of living by your > values. This is the part where I think you still need other people to > help you find which is which. Someone could just as easily make others > important because they were fearful or some other reason, and you have > to spend the time exploring this sort of thing to sort it out.>> There are a lot of other corollaries, but I'm writing an email, not a > thesis. So I'll stop there.>> >> */Joanne Hersh /*

wrote:>> *LOL-- You are indeed !! Your email address from this message> says to me indicates as such as does your name in my> "attachment box" as does the name here to your reply, which says:> "> Wrote">> And yet, you have the nerve to insult me and tell me:> /"Nope, still , not .".> /> You are not good at being an impostor. I suggest if you decide to> continue on this path of deception, you learn more about the way> email> works.>> For pete's sake, we are talking VALUES here--have you considered> honesty and integrity?!>> Peace to you too,> Joanne> *> wrote:>> > Nope, still , not .> >> > peace> > k> >> > Joanne Hersh wrote:> > > *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and> > > creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I> > > don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically> about improv> > > that you think might resonate with me more? What is it that I have> > > said makes you consider this?> > >> > > Peace,> > > Joanne*> > >> > > Williston wrote:> > >>> > >> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational> > >> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot> of the> > >> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but> the path> > >> of discovery is more organic than most

therapy sessions are> likely to> > >> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work> yourself> > >> as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying> to be> > >> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this> > >> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely> free. If> > >> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching> yourselves> > >> improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.> > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> */Joanne Hersh >/* wrote:> > >>> > >> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is a> > >> good one.> > >> The way to values is

really as simple and as natural as this> > >> after all.> > >> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our> > >> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing> > >> about> > >> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've> > >> known> > >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended> > >> moments--when> > >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate> > >> with a> > >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I> > >> prefer to> > >> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms> > >> of my> > >> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding

more> > >> creative> > >> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But> then I've> > >> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my> > >> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to> > >> discuss> > >> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I> > >> just am.> > >>> > >> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail> > >> discussion of> > >> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can> > >> prove> > >> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and> 's> > >> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than> have my> >

>> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come> > >> cheap).> > >> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain> > >> open and> > >> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.> > >> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or> mystical> > >> about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works> > >> for me!> > >>> > >> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit> > >> like the> > >> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all> > >> along").> > >>> > >> Peace,> > >> Joanne> > >> *> > >>> > >> Williston wrote:> > >>> > >> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big> > >> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final> > >> arbitrator.> > >> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and> > >> implys that> > >> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made.> > >> Thanks to> > >> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing> their> > >> > values are going to be the same, especially since not> everyone is> > >> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the> > >> > "observer self" is learning to see the general framework that I> > >> use> >

>> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing> > >> that I> > >> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I> > >> know but> > >> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is> > >> ok that> > >> > "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other> > >> people. I> > >> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action without> > >> being> > >> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always> a bit> > >> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding> to do> > >> > something other than what my wife is doing because I decide> > >> that I am> > >>

> too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife> > >> more> > >> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold> for me.> > >> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:> > >> >> > >> > *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we> > >> > tease out> > >> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things are> > >> sticky or> > >> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later> > >> with> > >> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address

these> delineated> > >> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or> overwhelming --it> > >> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the> > >> > spontaneity and> > >> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we> > >> > are and> > >> > what we really care about, about all of this that you so> eloquently> > >> > speak to here.> > >> >> > >> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!> > >> >> > >> > Peace,> > >> > Joanne*> > >> >> > >> > wrote:> > >> >> > >> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living

Questionnaire or the> > >> > worksheets> > >> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote> and not> > >> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need> to be> > >> > done that> > >> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,> > >> not the> > >> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment> of the> > >> > topic in> > >> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.> > >> > >> > >> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > there is no question that the

categories are arbitrarily> > >> > divided--we say> > >> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same> sense, the> > >> > various> > >> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look> > >> with a> > >> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the> > >> > division is> > >> > > practical at times and not at others. For example,> sometimes a> > >> > really> > >> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes> > >> > focusing> > >> > > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a> > >> > domain can> > >> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in

a session that can be> built> > >> > upon. On> > >> > > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and> > >> actually> > >> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start> > >> having> > >> > > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already> > >> fits, how> > >> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us.> > >> But we> > >> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to> suffer> > >> > things> > >> > > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with> oneself> > >> > back and> > >> > > forth between valuing this and valuing

that--you can actually> > >> > feel the> > >> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is> better> > >> > to let> > >> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have one> life--one> > >> > life,> > >> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys,> > >> sorrows,> > >> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.> > >> > >> > >> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my> > >> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole life> that a> > >> > person> > >> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in> my own> >

>> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that> "fits."> > >> > Sometimes> > >> > > this means focusing on particular domains where there is> > >> > stickiness, a> > >> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,> > >> > sometimes it> > >> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape> > >> of the> > >> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a> > >> hand on> > >> > > both views when needed.> > >> > >> > >> > > warm regards,> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:> > >> > >

> *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own> > >> > values? I> > >> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing> values than> > >> > trying> > >> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with> boundaries> > >> > like:> > >> > > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so> forth.> > >> > That> > >> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used> to do> > >> > in grade> > >> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what> > >> > matters, what> > >> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out> to one> > >> > person> > >> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily> > >> in one> > >> > > > context over another--some of us are more community focused> > >> > and some> > >> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But> > >> we can> > >> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or> > >> perhaps this> > >> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate> question> > >> > later> > >> > > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your> > >> values?".> > >> > > > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for> > >> > true

values.> > >> > > >> > >> > > > Joanne*> > >> > > >> > >> > > > ronleifer@... wrote:> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed> light> > >> > on the> > >> > > >> ACT values issue:> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want> to be?> > >> > When> > >> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> Ron Leifer> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> >

>> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > __________________________________________________> > >> >

[Guest guest]

I am totally confused. I thought Joanne was just joking around and having fun about the / mix-up -- because to my mind there WAS NO mix-up, it was perfectly obviously to me when was writing and when was writing. Then all of a sudden things seem to have gotten serious, feelings have been hurt (apparently), is apologizing (for what, I don't know)-- am I the only person who doesn't understand what is going on here? Williston wrote: is writing:Joanne, you are correct in that I should have been more clear. I am sorry that I did not write in sooner about this issue, and I should have been more concise and clear. I am not sure where the problem started exactly, but I have noted on Yahoo groups that occasionally the " wrote:" can be confusing if one of the people writing is using Yahoo mail (I am) and the other is not ( is not). This is my second attempt to post this to the group, apparently I missent it the first time. Joanne Hersh wrote: *Boy, I'm tempted to tell the truth, and since that's my value, I will. I really don't care if you are or Williston or both. Many here use pseudo names and might even have two emails--although I don't recall anyone

using two separate personas, and I don't recall anyone posting on another's email server. The issue here is more about trustworthiness and common courtesy.If you truly are as caring about the 'greater good' over your own selfish amusement, you might have taken the time to clear things up some, to address rather than continue to ignore outright this obvious discrepancy that was brought to your attention. You flatly denied you were all the while the name showed up all over the screen--including to the right where the poster's name is listed. At the point the onus is on you to help clear the air. But you didn't. Let's say you really are Williston using 's email server (unlikely as name structure similarity is uncanny), you might have simply offered this. And if you are really , you might have come clean after being exposed as such. Your continued insistence on

not offering any explanation privately or public ally borders on arrogant. You might have also shown your professed value for the "greater good" by simply answering my question when I first asked it, instead of choosing to ignore it outright. The irony of all of this of course is that you brought up acting here. You may want to brush up more on your own classes, as I'm afraid your attempt at feigning nobility is not very convincing. Interesting (and bordering on the ridiculous) to note that if you aren't , the real has yet to weigh on this discussion despite being made aware of the same.* Williston wrote:> Boy, I'm tempted to just not reply to this and see how far it goes. . > but that would be the part of me that "values" my own amusement over > the greater good of society in general!>> The basis of my suggestion is that you wrote:>>

The truth is I know what my values are and I've> > >> known> > >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended> > >> moments--when> > >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate> > >> with a> > >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth.>> I might not suggest this approach for someone who was still struggling > to get in touch with their values (it would depend on a lot of > variables that I couldn't even begin to go over). However, seeing as > you seem to find some insight from "inuitive" approaches to > self-discovery, improv may be the way for you!>> Essentially, to do improv, you have to "get out of your mind" (I have > heard that somewhere before.. . hmmm. . .) and just let your > "sub-conscious" (basically the part of you that already knows your >

values) dictate your actions. It is still acting, but you don't need a > dramatic flair to do it. As the directors say, "Life is improv. No one > gave you a script as you got out of bed today." What I have > discovered in my limited experience directing small groups is that a > person's true self (the one that they try to hide) comes out in all of > their characters.>> As a path to find values, we find that some people ALWAYS try to build > up the other player. They aren't concerned so much about who is "the > boss" in the "office scene." They could be the doctor, the patient, or > the nurse in the hospital, but they always try to help the other > people be the "good guy," "the smart one," or "the hero." Here, > potentially, we have revealed a value instead of a problem. I do this, > and I distill from this that I truly want to make the world a better > place one person at a

time.>> Essentially, the relevant part of improv for RFT is that you create > the reality of each scene one line at a time. There is potential (and > if you do improv long enough, the requirement) that you > bend/break/rewrite the basic laws of the universe to make a scene > work. For example, someone may make an "error" of being "shocked" by > discovering that he has 5 fingers! Well, this is now a shock to > everyone (you have to support your fellow players or it all falls > apart), and you either discover that this 5 fingered man is the ONLY 5 > fingered person they know, or terrible mutations are running rampant, > or. .. . This essentially meanst that > all of your verbal relationships come into question and you have to > learn to be able to set them aside instantly to make a scene work. > Even in playing the part of a character diametrically

opposed to your > values, you will find that you were the "bad guy," no matter if the > rest of the players made you out to be the "good guy." You yourself > judged that your actions did not fit your values, even if you manage > to portray the character convincingly.>> Again, not only do you find your values, but you find those hidden > things that you didn't realize got in the way of living by your > values. This is the part where I think you still need other people to > help you find which is which. Someone could just as easily make others > important because they were fearful or some other reason, and you have > to spend the time exploring this sort of thing to sort it out.>> There are a lot of other corollaries, but I'm writing an email, not a > thesis. So I'll stop there.>> >> */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:>> *LOL-- You are

indeed !! Your email address from this message> says to me indicates as such as does your name in my> "attachment box" as does the name here to your reply, which says:> "> Wrote">> And yet, you have the nerve to insult me and tell me:> /"Nope, still , not .".> /> You are not good at being an impostor. I suggest if you decide to> continue on this path of deception, you learn more about the way> email> works.>> For pete's sake, we are talking VALUES here--have you considered> honesty and integrity?!>> Peace to you too,> Joanne> *> wrote:>> > Nope, still , not .> >> > peace> > k> >> > Joanne Hersh wrote:> > > *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and> > > creative

suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I> > > don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically> about improv> > > that you think might resonate with me more? What is it that I have> > > said makes you consider this?> > >> > > Peace,> > > Joanne*> > >> > > Williston wrote:> > >>> > >> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational> > >> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot> of the> > >> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but> the path> > >> of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are> likely to> > >> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work> yourself> > >> as they tend to be organic largely because they

aren't trying> to be> > >> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this> > >> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely> free. If> > >> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching> yourselves> > >> improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.> > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> */Joanne Hersh >/* wrote:> > >>> > >> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is a> > >> good one.> > >> The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this> > >> after all.> > >> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our> > >> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing> > >> about> >

>> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've> > >> known> > >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended> > >> moments--when> > >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate> > >> with a> > >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth. I> > >> prefer to> > >> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms> > >> of my> > >> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more> > >> creative> > >> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But> then I've> > >> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my> > >> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to> > >> discuss> >

>> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I> > >> just am.> > >>> > >> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail> > >> discussion of> > >> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can> > >> prove> > >> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and> 's> > >> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than> have my> > >> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come> > >> cheap).> > >> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain> > >> open and> > >> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.> > >> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or> mystical> >

>> about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works> > >> for me!> > >>> > >> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit> > >> like the> > >> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all> > >> along").> > >>> > >> Peace,> > >> Joanne> > >> *> > >>> > >> Williston wrote:> > >>> > >> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big> > >> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final> > >> arbitrator.> > >> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and> > >> implys that> > >> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made.> > >>

Thanks to> > >> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing> their> > >> > values are going to be the same, especially since not> everyone is> > >> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the> > >> > "observer self" is learning to see the general framework that I> > >> use> > >> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing> > >> that I> > >> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I> > >> know but> > >> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is> > >> ok that> > >> > "cold" for me is a different category than it is for other> > >> people. I> > >> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action

without> > >> being> > >> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always> a bit> > >> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding> to do> > >> > something other than what my wife is doing because I decide> > >> that I am> > >> > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife> > >> more> > >> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold> for me.> > >> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:> > >> >> > >> > *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we> > >> > tease out> >

>> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things are> > >> sticky or> > >> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later> > >> with> > >> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these> delineated> > >> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or> overwhelming --it> > >> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the> > >> > spontaneity and> > >> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we> > >> > are and> > >> > what we really care about, about all of this that you so> eloquently> > >> > speak to here.> > >> >> > >> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!> > >> >> > >>

> Peace,> > >> > Joanne*> > >> >> > >> > wrote:> > >> >> > >> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the> > >> > worksheets> > >> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote> and not> > >> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need> to be> > >> > done that> > >> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,> > >> not the> > >> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment> of the> > >> > topic in> > >> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.> > >> > >> > >> > >

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily> > >> > divided--we say> > >> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same> sense, the> > >> > various> > >> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look> > >> with a> > >> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the> > >> > division is> > >> > > practical at times and not at others. For example,> sometimes a> > >> > really> > >> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes> > >> > focusing> > >> > > in on a particular

domain, or even a small locale within a> > >> > domain can> > >> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be> built> > >> > upon. On> > >> > > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and> > >> actually> > >> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start> > >> having> > >> > > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already> > >> fits, how> > >> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us.> > >> But we> > >> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to> suffer> > >> > things> > >> > > like "values in conflict" and an endless argument with> oneself> > >> > back

and> > >> > > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually> > >> > feel the> > >> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is> better> > >> > to let> > >> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have one> life--one> > >> > life,> > >> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys,> > >> sorrows,> > >> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.> > >> > >> > >> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my> > >> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole life> that a> > >> > person> > >> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in> my own>

> >> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that> "fits."> > >> > Sometimes> > >> > > this means focusing on particular domains where there is> > >> > stickiness, a> > >> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,> > >> > sometimes it> > >> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape> > >> of the> > >> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a> > >> hand on> > >> > > both views when needed.> > >> > >> > >> > > warm regards,> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:> > >> > > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your

own> > >> > values? I> > >> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing> values than> > >> > trying> > >> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with> boundaries> > >> > like:> > >> > > > "Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship" and so> forth.> > >> > That> > >> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used> to do> > >> > in grade> > >> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what> > >> > matters, what> > >> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out> to one> > >> > person> > >> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily>

> >> in one> > >> > > > context over another--some of us are more community focused> > >> > and some> > >> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But> > >> we can> > >> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or> > >> perhaps this> > >> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate> question> > >> > later> > >> > > > on-- i.e, "Where do you want to focus the energy of your> > >> values?".> > >> > > > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for> > >> > true values.> > >> > > >> > >> > > > Joanne*> > >> > > >> > >> > > > ronleiferaol

wrote:> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed> light> > >> > on the> > >> > > >> ACT values issue:> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> "First say to yourself, what manner of person you want> to be?> > >> > When> > >> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do."> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> Ron Leifer> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > __________________________________________________> > >> > Do You

Yahoo!?> > >> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> > >> > http://mail.yahoo.com> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------> > >> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone> calls. Great> > >> rates starting at 1¢/min.> > >>> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make

PC-to-Phone calls. Great > rates starting at 1¢/min. > > > Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

I'm confused too. Maybe Kel just has developed

multiple personality disorder. Good deal. We can always use one more

.

I have a bit of a hard time understanding the upset either way.

This group seems to require the possibility of

anonymity (tho it is a choice, not a requirement of anyone)

so that people can talk about what is of importance personally

as it bears on these processes. Therapists are people too.

If that is right then dealing with identities seems

just seems off point to the purpose of the list

If someone wants to impersonate Steve , that would worry me.

If someone wants to impersonate Bessy Bluebottom, it does not.

(presuming Bessy is not on the list!)

- S

Steve

aka Bessy Bluebottom

Quoting " lostnightmusic@... " :

> I am totally confused. I thought Joanne was just joking around and

> having fun about the / mix-up -- because to my mind

> there WAS NO mix-up, it was perfectly obviously to me when was

> writing and when was writing.

>

> Then all of a sudden things seem to have gotten serious, feelings

> have been hurt (apparently), is apologizing (for what, I don't

> know)-- am I the only person who doesn't understand what is going

> on here?

>

>

> Williston wrote:

> is writing:

>

> Joanne, you are correct in that I should have been more clear. I am

> sorry that I did not write in sooner about this issue, and I should

> have been more concise and clear. I am not sure where the problem

> started exactly, but I have noted on Yahoo groups that occasionally

> the " wrote: " can be confusing if one of the people writing is using

> Yahoo mail (I am) and the other is not ( is not).

>

> This is my second attempt to post this to the group, apparently I

> missent it the first time.

>

>

>

>

> Joanne Hersh wrote: *Boy, I'm tempted to tell the

> truth, and since that's my value, I

> will. I really don't care if you are or Williston or

> both. Many here use pseudo names and might even have two

> emails--although I don't recall anyone using two separate personas, and

> I don't recall anyone posting on another's email server. The issue

> here is more about trustworthiness and common courtesy.

>

> If you truly are as caring about the 'greater good' over your own

> selfish amusement, you might have taken the time to clear things up

> some, to address rather than continue to ignore outright this obvious

> discrepancy that was brought to your attention. You flatly denied you

> were all the while the name showed up all over

> the screen--including to the right where the poster's name is listed.

> At the point the onus is on you to help clear the air. But you didn't.

> Let's say you really are Williston using 's email

> server (unlikely as name structure similarity is uncanny), you might

> have simply offered this. And if you are really , you might

> have come clean after being exposed as such. Your continued insistence

> on not offering any explanation privately or public ally borders on

> arrogant.

>

> You might have also shown your professed value for the " greater good " by

> simply answering my question when I first asked it, instead of choosing

> to ignore it outright. The irony of all of this of course is that you

> brought up acting here. You may want to brush up more on your own

> classes, as I'm afraid your attempt at feigning nobility is not very

> convincing. Interesting (and bordering on the ridiculous) to note that

> if you aren't , the real has yet to weigh on

> this discussion despite being made aware of the same.

>

>

>

> * Williston wrote:

>

>> Boy, I'm tempted to just not reply to this and see how far it goes. .

>> but that would be the part of me that " values " my own amusement over

>> the greater good of society in general!

>>

>> The basis of my suggestion is that you wrote:

>>

>> The truth is I know what my values are and I've

>> > >> known

>> > >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

>> > >> moments--when

>> > >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate

>> > >> with a

>> > >> " 1, 2, 3 " next to spirituality or community and so forth.

>>

>> I might not suggest this approach for someone who was still struggling

>> to get in touch with their values (it would depend on a lot of

>> variables that I couldn't even begin to go over). However, seeing as

>> you seem to find some insight from " inuitive " approaches to

>> self-discovery, improv may be the way for you!

>>

>> Essentially, to do improv, you have to " get out of your mind " (I have

>> heard that somewhere before.. . hmmm. . .) and just let your

>> " sub-conscious " (basically the part of you that already knows your

>> values) dictate your actions. It is still acting, but you don't need a

>> dramatic flair to do it. As the directors say, " Life is improv. No one

>> gave you a script as you got out of bed today. " What I have

>> discovered in my limited experience directing small groups is that a

>> person's true self (the one that they try to hide) comes out in all of

>> their characters.

>>

>> As a path to find values, we find that some people ALWAYS try to build

>> up the other player. They aren't concerned so much about who is " the

>> boss " in the " office scene. " They could be the doctor, the patient, or

>> the nurse in the hospital, but they always try to help the other

>> people be the " good guy, " " the smart one, " or " the hero. " Here,

>> potentially, we have revealed a value instead of a problem. I do this,

>> and I distill from this that I truly want to make the world a better

>> place one person at a time.

>>

>> Essentially, the relevant part of improv for RFT is that you create

>> the reality of each scene one line at a time. There is potential (and

>> if you do improv long enough, the requirement) that you

>> bend/break/rewrite the basic laws of the universe to make a scene

>> work. For example, someone may make an " error " of being " shocked " by

>> discovering that he has 5 fingers! Well, this is now a shock to

>> everyone (you have to support your fellow players or it all falls

>> apart), and you either discover that this 5 fingered man is the ONLY 5

>> fingered person they know, or terrible mutations are running rampant,

>> or. .. . This essentially meanst that

>> all of your verbal relationships come into question and you have to

>> learn to be able to set them aside instantly to make a scene work.

>> Even in playing the part of a character diametrically opposed to your

>> values, you will find that you were the " bad guy, " no matter if the

>> rest of the players made you out to be the " good guy. " You yourself

>> judged that your actions did not fit your values, even if you manage

>> to portray the character convincingly.

>>

>> Again, not only do you find your values, but you find those hidden

>> things that you didn't realize got in the way of living by your

>> values. This is the part where I think you still need other people to

>> help you find which is which. Someone could just as easily make others

>> important because they were fearful or some other reason, and you have

>> to spend the time exploring this sort of thing to sort it out.

>>

>> There are a lot of other corollaries, but I'm writing an email, not a

>> thesis. So I'll stop there.

>>

>>

>>

>> */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>>

>> *LOL-- You are indeed !! Your email address from this message

>> says to me indicates as such as does your name in my

>> " attachment box " as does the name here to your reply, which says:

>> "

>> Wrote "

>>

>> And yet, you have the nerve to insult me and tell me:

>> / " Nope, still , not . " .

>> /

>> You are not good at being an impostor. I suggest if you decide to

>> continue on this path of deception, you learn more about the way

>> email

>> works.

>>

>> For pete's sake, we are talking VALUES here--have you considered

>> honesty and integrity?!

>>

>> Peace to you too,

>> Joanne

>> *

>> wrote:

>>

>> > Nope, still , not .

>> >

>> > peace

>> > k

>> >

>> > Joanne Hersh wrote:

>> > > *This is very intriguing to me, . What an interesting and

>> > > creative suggestion! My curiosity has been sparked. But alas, I

>> > > don't know anything about improv. What is it specifically

>> about improv

>> > > that you think might resonate with me more? What is it that I have

>> > > said makes you consider this?

>> > >

>> > > Peace,

>> > > Joanne*

>> > >

>> > > Williston wrote:

>> > >>

>> > >> I would suggest that you look into getting some improvisational

>> > >> acting training based on what you said in this email. A lot

>> of the

>> > >> premises are the same or closely related to ACT theory, but

>> the path

>> > >> of discovery is more organic than most therapy sessions are

>> likely to

>> > >> be (but you will have to do a lot of the self-discovery work

>> yourself

>> > >> as they tend to be organic largely because they aren't trying

>> to be

>> > >> therapy). Depending on where you live and how hard you look, this

>> > >> could be more expensive than years of therapy, or absolutely

>> free. If

>> > >> you can find a group of people, you can even try teaching

>> yourselves

>> > >> improv if you like, although that is pretty hard to do IMHO.

>> > >>

>> > >>

>> > >>

>> > >> */Joanne Hersh >/* wrote:

>> > >>

>> > >> *Thanks (or is it ?). The temperature analogy is a

>> > >> good one.

>> > >> The way to values is really as simple and as natural as this

>> > >> after all.

>> > >> I'd have to say the humanistic and compassionate premise of our

>> > >> experience as final arbiter is the single most attractive thing

>> > >> about

>> > >> ACT in my view. The truth is I know what my values are and I've

>> > >> known

>> > >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

>> > >> moments--when

>> > >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate

>> > >> with a

>> > >> " 1, 2, 3 " next to spirituality or community and so forth. I

>> > >> prefer to

>> > >> just keep asking myself where I want to focus my energy in terms

>> > >> of my

>> > >> identified values. That's more than enough. I'm finding more

>> > >> creative

>> > >> and spontaneous answers spring forth from this place. (But

>> then I've

>> > >> never been a formula or cookbook approach person). I know what my

>> > >> values are when I just sit quietly and when I'm not trying to

>> > >> discuss

>> > >> ten reasons why I'm feeling a different temperature than you. I

>> > >> just am.

>> > >>

>> > >> In some ways, this makes ACT therapy sessions that entail

>> > >> discussion of

>> > >> values (replete with worksheets) contraindicated--in that it can

>> > >> prove

>> > >> distracting. To be candid, the books and the listserve and

>> 's

>> > >> Telecourse on ACT have taught me hands down much more than

>> have my

>> > >> individual sessions with an ACT therapist (and these don't come

>> > >> cheap).

>> > >> When I meditate and journal and look in the mirror and remain

>> > >> open and

>> > >> honest to what I see and hear, I know exactly what I care about.

>> > >> Someone else said there is nothing magical or mysterious or

>> mystical

>> > >> about values. They're just what you happen to care about. Works

>> > >> for me!

>> > >>

>> > >> Thanks for the reminder that I already know. (This feels a bit

>> > >> like the

>> > >> good witch Glenda telling Dorothy in Oz: " Why, you had it all

>> > >> along " ).

>> > >>

>> > >> Peace,

>> > >> Joanne

>> > >> *

>> > >>

>> > >> Williston wrote:

>> > >>

>> > >> > I think that is a beautiful idea Joanne. I think it is a big

>> > >> > fulfillment of the idea of our experience being a final

>> > >> arbitrator.

>> > >> > RFT suggests to me that simply using language requires and

>> > >> implys that

>> > >> > I am making and using verbal connections that I have made.

>> > >> Thanks to

>> > >> > personal experience, no 2 people's methods of catagorizing

>> their

>> > >> > values are going to be the same, especially since not

>> everyone is

>> > >> > going to value the same things. I think part of accepting the

>> > >> > " observer self " is learning to see the general framework that I

>> > >> use

>> > >> > to interact with my values. I like to compare it to realizing

>> > >> that I

>> > >> > tend to feel cold at a higher temperature than some people I

>> > >> know but

>> > >> > at a lower temperature than other people. In a lot ways, it is

>> > >> ok that

>> > >> > " cold " for me is a different category than it is for other

>> > >> people. I

>> > >> > think it also helps me to determine my course of action without

>> > >> being

>> > >> > trapped by fusion and decending into suffering. I am always

>> a bit

>> > >> > surprised to note emotional involvement in simply deciding

>> to do

>> > >> > something other than what my wife is doing because I decide

>> > >> that I am

>> > >> > too hot. Some days, I decide that I value the time with my wife

>> > >> more

>> > >> > than my own comfort, and some days she decides to be cold

>> for me.

>> > >> > Other days. . . we would just rather be comfortable.

>> > >> >

>> > >> >

>> > >> >

>> > >> >

>> > >> > */Joanne Hersh /* wrote:

>> > >> >

>> > >> > *By the way, I certainly appreciate the fullness found when we

>> > >> > tease out

>> > >> > our values and hone in on certain domains where things are

>> > >> sticky or

>> > >> > feel grindy. But in my view, this is something that comes later

>> > >> with

>> > >> > fine tuning. Precipitously attempting to address these

>> delineated

>> > >> > categories is not only artificial or confusing or

>> overwhelming --it

>> > >> > potentially misses the mark, undermines and dilutes the

>> > >> > spontaneity and

>> > >> > integrity from which values emerge: the saying yes about who we

>> > >> > are and

>> > >> > what we really care about, about all of this that you so

>> eloquently

>> > >> > speak to here.

>> > >> >

>> > >> > I'm off to draw my own lines now, as per your suggestion!

>> > >> >

>> > >> > Peace,

>> > >> > Joanne*

>> > >> >

>> > >> > wrote:

>> > >> >

>> > >> > > Hi Joanne - although the Valued Living Questionnaire or the

>> > >> > worksheets

>> > >> > > in the ACT book can be done in a way that is pretty rote

>> and not

>> > >> > > terribly meaningful, I don't think they necessarily need

>> to be

>> > >> > done that

>> > >> > > way. The worksheets are an entry point to the conversation,

>> > >> not the

>> > >> > > endpoint. See, for example, Amy Murrell and my treatment

>> of the

>> > >> > topic in

>> > >> > > the values chapter in the Acceptance and Mindfulness book.

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/wilson_murrell_2004

>> >

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > > there is no question that the categories are arbitrarily

>> > >> > divided--we say

>> > >> > > so (and could be divided in many ways). In the same

>> sense, the

>> > >> > various

>> > >> > > points on the hexaflex are arbitrarily divided. If you look

>> > >> with a

>> > >> > > certain view, it all runs together. In the values work, the

>> > >> > division is

>> > >> > > practical at times and not at others. For example,

>> sometimes a

>> > >> > really

>> > >> > > general approach to valued living is too amorphous. Sometimes

>> > >> > focusing

>> > >> > > in on a particular domain, or even a small locale within a

>> > >> > domain can

>> > >> > > deliver up a moment of vitality in a session that can be

>> built

>> > >> > upon. On

>> > >> > > the other hand, if one takes the categories seriously, and

>> > >> actually

>> > >> > > start believing that you are all cut up in chunks, you start

>> > >> having

>> > >> > > problems with how you can fit it all together. (It already

>> > >> fits, how

>> > >> > > could it be otherwise. We draw the lines, they don't draw us.

>> > >> But we

>> > >> > > forget that sometimes --we call that fusion) You start to

>> suffer

>> > >> > things

>> > >> > > like " values in conflict " and an endless argument with

>> oneself

>> > >> > back and

>> > >> > > forth between valuing this and valuing that--you can actually

>> > >> > feel the

>> > >> > > life slipping out of the room. At times like these, it is

>> better

>> > >> > to let

>> > >> > > go of the categories and notice that you only have one

>> life--one

>> > >> > life,

>> > >> > > right here, right now, with all its aches and pains, joys,

>> > >> sorrows,

>> > >> > > sweet moments and sad, to say yes or no to.

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > > I would say that ultimately, the thing I am feeling for in my

>> > >> > > conversations about various life domains is a whole life

>> that a

>> > >> > person

>> > >> > > can say yes to and mean it. And yes, this is how it is in

>> my own

>> > >> > > life--feeling for vitality and a shape to my life that

>> " fits. "

>> > >> > Sometimes

>> > >> > > this means focusing on particular domains where there is

>> > >> > stickiness, a

>> > >> > > grinding quality, a lack of vitality, a resentment. And,

>> > >> > sometimes it

>> > >> > > means letting go of all the categories and feeling the shape

>> > >> of the

>> > >> > > whole of it. I personally find it useful to be able to put a

>> > >> hand on

>> > >> > > both views when needed.

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > > warm regards,

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > > Joanne Hersh wrote:

>> > >> > > > *Thanks Ron. Does this work for you when forming your own

>> > >> > values? I

>> > >> > > > actually prefer this sort of larger way of viewing

>> values than

>> > >> > trying

>> > >> > > > to squeeze them into categories in a worksheet with

>> boundaries

>> > >> > like:

>> > >> > > > " Spirituality, Community, Education, Friendship " and so

>> forth.

>> > >> > That

>> > >> > > > feels like an old values clarification exercise I used

>> to do

>> > >> > in grade

>> > >> > > > school. Values speak to me about my larger vision, what

>> > >> > matters, what

>> > >> > > > I care about overall. I don't necessarily dole them out

>> to one

>> > >> > person

>> > >> > > > and not another. Certainly our values emerge more readily

>> > >> in one

>> > >> > > > context over another--some of us are more community focused

>> > >> > and some

>> > >> > > > more intellectually or spiritually focused and so on. But

>> > >> we can

>> > >> > > > figure that on our own, as we live out our values. Or

>> > >> perhaps this

>> > >> > > > could be posed as a separate conscious and deliberate

>> question

>> > >> > later

>> > >> > > > on-- i.e, " Where do you want to focus the energy of your

>> > >> values? " .

>> > >> > > > But melding the two in my view detracts from the quest for

>> > >> > true values.

>> > >> > > >

>> > >> > > > Joanne*

>> > >> > > >

>> > >> > > > ronleifer@... wrote:

>> > >> > > >>

>> > >> > > >> Just ran across a quote from Epictetus that might shed

>> light

>> > >> > on the

>> > >> > > >> ACT values issue:

>> > >> > > >>

>> > >> > > >> " First say to yourself, what manner of person you want

>> to be?

>> > >> > When

>> > >> > > >> you have settled this, act upon it in all you do. "

>> > >> > > >>

>> > >> > > >> Ron Leifer

>> > >> > > >>

>> > >> > > >

>> > >> > >

>> > >> > >

>> > >> >

>> > >> >

>> > >> >

>> > >> > __________________________________________________

>> > >> >

[Guest guest]

,

I never got to thank you for this wonderfully thorough reply about how values

from ACT and RFT modalities fit with therapy and improv work, and how all

of this differentiates from doing traditional therapy. There is so much

here that I'm still mulling it over. One thing is clear for sure--you've

done your homework and then some! I have a lot to learn from you. I hope

you don't mind if I sit with this and come back in a few days with some questions

should any arise.

Best,

Joanne

Williston wrote:

Boy, I'm tempted to just not reply to this and see how far it goes.

.. but that would be the part of me that "values" my own amusement over the

greater good of society in general!

The basis of my suggestion is that you wrote:

The truth is I know what my values are and I've

> >> known

> >> for a long time. I've had glimpses in my most unintended

> >> moments--when

> >> I'm not trying to fill out worksheets with categories and rate

> >> with a

> >> "1, 2, 3" next to spirituality or community and so forth.

I might not suggest this approach for someone who was still struggling to

get in touch with their values (it would depend on a lot of variables that

I couldn't even begin to go over). However, seeing as you seem to find some

insight from "inuitive" approaches to self-discovery, improv may be the way

for you!

Essentially, to do improv, you have to "get out of your mind" (I have heard

that somewhere before.. . hmmm. . .) and just let your "sub-conscious" (basically

the part of you that already knows your values) dictate your actions. It

is still acting, but you don't need a dramatic flair to do it. As the directors

say, "Life is improv. No one gave you a script as you got out of bed today."

What I have discovered in my limited experience directing small groups is

that a person's true self (the one that they try to hide) comes out in all

of their characters.

As a path to find values, we find that some people ALWAYS try to build up

the other player. They aren't concerned so much about who is "the boss" in

the "office scene." They could be the doctor, the patient, or the nurse in

the hospital, but they always try to help the other people be the "good guy,"

"the smart one," or "the hero." Here, potentially, we have revealed a value

instead of a problem. I do this, and I distill from this that I truly want

to make the world a better place one person at a time.

Essentially, the relevant part of improv for RFT is that you create the reality

of each scene one line at a time. There is potential (and if you do improv

long enough, the requirement) that you bend/break/rewrite the basic laws

of the universe to make a scene work. For example, someone may make an "error"

of being "shocked" by discovering that he has 5 fingers! Well, this is now

a shock to everyone (you have to support your fellow players or it all falls

apart), and you either discover that this 5 fingered man is the ONLY 5 fingered

person they know, or terrible mutations are running rampant, or. .. <insert

your own universe here>. This essentially meanst that all of your verbal

relationships come into question and you have to learn to be able to set

them aside instantly to make a scene work. Even in playing the part of a

character diametrically opposed to your values, you will find that you were

the "bad guy," no matter if the rest of the players made you out to be the

"good guy." You yourself judged that your actions did not fit your values,

even if you manage to portray the character convincingly.

Again, not only do you find your values, but you find those hidden things

that you didn't realize got in the way of living by your values. This is

the part where I think you still need other people to help you find which

is which. Someone could just as easily make others important because they

were fearful or some other reason, and you have to spend the time exploring

this sort of thing to sort it out.

There are a lot of other corollaries, but I'm writing an email, not a thesis.

So I'll stop there.