Theme 2 - Take 3?

Hmmm Ann You certainly do raise more questions.
Re 'hate' I agree it is probably a thought that comes from strong feelings of anger, rage, resentment etc.
Re feels awful or small. I am wondering if it is a bit like the discussions we have had about private parts. My thoughts are, although not strictly consistent with PBs philosophy the common usage makes it sensible to accept it as part of the language for teaching safety.
I wonder if 'feels awful' is the similar. We say things like ... it feels too awful, I cant talk about it ... or ... its really so small compared to others (problems). It is such a common expression, for clarity and shared meaning it is worth accepting.

Another point here maybe, it seems as if the 'feeling' we have about whatever is triggering our EWS is awful. Not that awful in itself is a feeling. As you note, feelings are not always experienced as comfortable.

Could we use 'We can talk with someone about anything even if we have our EWS'. That could certainly be useful after someone has learned about EWS.
Hmmm it never stops!
That's all from me now
Cheers from Di

A really fab discussion!

I agree with Ann too - lots of questions emerging.

Is hating something like thick brown tights the same as 'feeling hatred' for a person or an experience? And some things like going outside in a snowstorm with no coat - many would agree perhaps that they would feel cold, but to say something 'feels awful' is far more subjective.....? Is the divide between 'feelings' and 'thoughts' an individual one??? "It feels like a small thing to me" or "I think that is a small thing" -- are these the same/carry the same meaning? If not, where does the difference lie and is it the same for everyone?????

Looking forward to more answers or questions ......?

Hi All
A few comments to add to the mix.
Re hating something like thick brown tights I believe is a more akin to a thought. However the feeling attached to that thought could be for example, disgust, repugnance or even anger. I wonder if the hatred of thick brown tights could have had it origins in e.g. being forced to wear them hence the anger or the person had been teased, hence the repulsion or anger etc etc
Feeling hatred toward someone, for me is also similar, where the feeling behind the hatred could be anger, repulsion etc.
The 'feeling cold' in a snowstorm for me is a physical feeling as opposed to an emotional feeling. The physical feeling can trigger an emotional feeling such as fear. So too emotional feelings trigger physical feelings e.g. EWS. For me teaching the difference helps people to understand the importance of EWS

My take on the thinking and/or feeling something is awful come back to the core of PBs.
It is individual and can only be measure by the person experiencing the situation. This is why we are so careful to accept what the person is saying rather than putting our interpretation on it. This applies to 'hating' thick brown tights as much as any other situation. Our response comes immediately back to the safety of language and the quality of our language when we respond to the person making the statement.

Enough philosophising on this wonderful spring morning
Cheers from Di

Hi all,

I thought I would add a few thoughts to this as, with many others, I was part of an everlasting PB debate about revising Theme Two and my choice, at the time, was to go with "We can talk with someone about anything even if it is awful or small". I was not about to make changes in my thinking light-heartedly, and without full consultation with the PB community, when I find myself in a conversation with Sally Ann, who had been talking with Di, and the clarity and consistency of ...even if it feels awful or small became immediately apparent to me.

The reason for the clarity and consistency goes back to the original version of Theme Two "There is nothing so awful we can't talk about it with someone". Written in this way the theme leaves the interpretation of "awful" as a feeling, a thought or whatever to the individual. The revised theme "We can talk with someone about anything even if it is awful or small misses the PB essential point of choice, control, time-limit by defining awful for us as an "it", a "thing" and thereby possibly limiting the individuals' choice.

A possible analogy in Theme One might be to define the concept of safety as "We all have the right to (be safe) rather than (feel safe) all the time. This would be similarly inconsistent with choice, control, time-limit and the idea of PBs based on an internal measurement of safety: that we know when we feel safe with our safe place as the basis of our personal concept of safety.

For me PBs is a simple and personal safety process and the simplicity (and complexity) of PBs is that each one of us has our own personal concept of what feels safe and equally and importantly what feels awful or small. Our thinking can/may influence those feelings as well as the options and choices and possible solutions available (Feelings, Thoughts, Behaviour). Some of the beliefs we may have internalised during our lives (Unwritten Rules) about what (is) awful may have a powerful influence on what feels awful, the thoughts we may have in relation to this and our subsequent behavioural response(s).
Donna Fortin's (USA) version of Theme Two requires the quality of trust for a network person. It seems to me that an aspect of the resilience of the concept of networks is that we do not necessarily need to trust someone we choose to add to our personal network. For example, in a personal emergency a person might talk with/seek support from someone who is unfamiliar to them ("a stranger") with whom "trust" had not been established. In some situations the absence of EWS may sometimes be enough, or perhaps, all we have to go on.

I do not think any particular qualities need to be a requirement of a network person and in looking for a person we could trust we might miss the person who could save our life. I am interested in hearing Donna's reasons for including "Trust" as a requirement of a network person.

It seems to have finally stopped raining here,

Simon

Hi again all,

Okeydokey - here I go with my next round of thinking on this:

I'm not sure the 'it' represents a 'thing' (as in a concrete object or definite situation). The word 'it' refers to the word 'anything' in the statement. (As the word 'it' in the original version referred to the word 'nothing').

'Anything' could be a feeling or a thought or a behaviour or situation. I need Simon to further articulate the connection with choice/control/time limit as I'm not quite on the same wave length at the moment. For me if an extra word is needed in the theme then 'seems' would be my preference (but I'm not convinced yet!).

I absolutely agree about disagreeing with the addition of 'someone we trust'.

Looking forward to further discussions. Who could have thought a simple sentence could promote so much discussion?

Ann

"We can talk with someone about anything, even if it seems awful or small"

Hi Ann,

Oops :oops: , absolutely right, meant to put (is) not (it) as in para 4. Funny thing I am looking again at the original version of Theme 2 and even with the inconsistency of can't talk the power of There is NOthing so awful ... may avoid the need for this discussion. Slightly tongue in cheek how about "There is nothing so awful - we can talk with someone about it".

I also looked at seems and it fits well with the idea of our individual perception of what constitutes awful. My reference to Choice Control, Time-limit from Theme One was about the choice to define what feels/seems/is awful for ourselves, to choose whether to talk with someone about it, have control over who that someone may be and what we share with that person and time-limit for when we decide to talk (or not talk) about it. I think this is one of the key things that links the two themes together.

Hope you like the colours,

Simon