| |
| |
| |
| |
In contrast to a “breakthrough,” this kind of process can be described as a meltthrough, in which someone's personal congruence has been so thoroughly respected that there is no longer a belief or objection to be “broken through.”
A breakthrough is much less likely to last, because the belief that has been ignored and shoved aside tends to reassert itself, particularly when the new belief, “I can do anything,” bumps its nose against the unyielding (and sometimes rough and painful) surface of real events.
As John McWhirter has often pointed out, every change involves both development and safety. Many people think of this as an either/or choice: “Either I can have development or safety, but not both.” This kind of assumption often underlies the use of a “breakthrough” experience. In contrast, a meltthrough respects both the person's wish to be more than they are and their legitimate concerns about what they might lose if they changed.
Safety and development are both valid needs. They exist simultaneously, and both can be analog functions, varying over a range. A meltthrough respects both our needs for safety and for development: “How can I change in the direction that I want, while at the same time keeping a degree of safety?” My sons' exploration of firewalking respected and satisfied both their curiosity about going beyond the boundaries of what they thought they could do, and their concerns about safety, by gathering information first, and then exploring in a step-by-step analog way.
Digital breakthrough experiences have been the focus of many change methods, in many contexts, over a very long period of time. Such breakthroughs are not limited to the heroic challenges that Bolstad describes so well; the same pattern of “breaking through” concerns and objections can be found in many other methods that don't involve physical challenges. I would like to explore one other such method that has the same kinds of limitations and dangers that I have described.
| |
| |
| |
| |
