Emergence Practitioners know Emergence Therapy to be quite different from other therapies. Very different, in fact. Even so, finding words to describe these differences is difficult at best. Why? Because people actually learn only through authentic, personal experiences. And because most people, when they try to personally experience words, reduce the words they read to the experiences they already know.

Are there similarities between Emergence Therapy and what people already know? Of course. How could there not be. Our therapy is built on the work of many wonderful people and on many great therapies. In a way then, Emergence Therapy is like a wonderful new cake recipe created from already known ingredients.

Despite the similarities though, we know Emergence Therapy to be quite different from other therapies and in fact, we see it not only as a "new" therapy but also as a gentler, more loving therapy. Why? Because we base the whole therapy in and around the experience of honest, blameless suffering or as Carl Jung might have called it, "legitimate," non neurotic suffering.

The point for this article then, will be to briefly identify, contrast, and compare the significant differences between traditional psychotherapies and Emergence. Our hope here is that through these words, we may further stimulate peoples' interest in exploring Emergence Therapy, at least to the point wherein we may engage in some "open, loving dialogues" about it.

What defines a conversation as "open" and "loving?" Basically that the people involved focus on the truth of the ideas discussed rather than on the competence of the idea tellers. In fact, I've recently learned that conversations which do the opposite, those which focus on discrediting idea tellers in order to disprove ideas, actually have a name. These conversations are called, "fallacies of argumentum ad hominem"; denying a truth by attacking the man.

We wish to attack no one. We wish simply to contribute to what is already known and to make a difference in how people heal, learn, love, and grow. And given a chance, we believe we can make such a difference. With this in mind, we present what we see as the primary differences between Emergence Therapy and other therapies.

What is the Primary Focus of the Therapy?

Diminishing / eliminating / making sense of peoples' suffering (the focus is on peoples' symptoms and painful events.)

Peoples' BLocked abilities to picture beauty on the screen of the mind (the focus is on restoring these BLocked abilities.)

How Does the Therapy Define the Word, "Wound"?

Traditional Therapies:

The "wound" is "the problem you can see"; what is present: the visible suffering (peoples' symptoms and painful events.)

Emergence Therapy:

The "wound" is "the beauty you cannot see"; what is missing: the person's BLocked ability to freely picture beauty on the screen of the mind.

What Causes Wounds?

How Does the Amount of Suffering Relate to the Wound (what determines how "serious" a wound is)?

The degree to which a wound causes suffering is directly proportionate to the size and seriousness of the original wounding incident; the degree of suffering mirrors the pain present in the original event.

The degree to which a wound causes suffering is grossly out of proportion to the pain of the original wounding event; the suffering is either much larger or much smaller than the pain present in the original event.

Can Repeatedly Experiencing the Same Painful Event Make Wounds Get Bigger?

No.

How Do Therapists Locate Wounds (how is the therapy practiced)?

By exploring peoples' suffering.

By looking for abrupt transitions between what people can see and what they can not see, even where there is no visible suffering.

How Do Therapists Know When a Wound Has Healed (how is "healing" defined)?

When people can effortlessly picture loving possibilities where they previously could picture none.

Can Releasing Emotion Heal?

Can Adopting Healthier Logic Heal?

Can People Really Make "Unconscious Choices" (are people really secretly at fault for what they do)?