Second, part of the practical outcome of a robust affirmation of field theory in Gestalt therapy is the exploration of the relevant fields or spheres of influence on a client's present living. This is one of the primary reasons why fantasied dialogue with significant others the well-known "empty chair" method has been an important element in Gestalt methodology. Here the the intensity of the therapeutic process is raised, and the process itself is made more of a here and now experience; it is thus more contactful.

Of equal value is the fact that the nature of important relationships in the client's life can be explored, and the client can experiment with new and more functional ways of interacting with a given significant other. There is a real sense in which all "individual therapy" is in fact "group therapy," since every individual comes to the therapeutic situation "accompanied" by numerous internalized "presences" who continue to exert influence on the client's present experience and behavior. GATLA's training does not include fantasied dialogues with these influential "presences," thus it does not effectively explore these spheres of influence or fields. Therefore, in my opinion, GATLA's grasp of field theory and its role in the training is limited.

Third, Todd Burley's reference to Vygotsky's findings that awareness is necessary for the brain to develop certain powers of organization is irrelevant to the present discussion. Here we are concerned with the impact of theory and experience on the therapist's perception and understanding of what the client reveals. It is not possible, as Resnick asserts in the British Gestalt Journal article referred to in my original letter, to have an uninterpreted experience of what the client reveals in the meeting with the therapist. That is not what phenomenological bracketing means. We cannot empty our minds of everything we know and have "bare perception;" with the minor exceptions which Vygotsky points to in early infant life, the very concept is an oxymoron. It is crucial for a Gestalt therapist to revise his/her understanding of a client in the light of ongoing experience. But it is also vitally important for the therapist to bring to that ongoing experience a rich understanding of the nature of therapeutic dialogue, of the phenomenological method, of field theory, and of organismic holism, and to grasp the therapeutic power of fantasied dialogue and other important forms of experimentation. GATLA's training involves a limited understanding of all of these, and this in turn informs how they are presented in the training. Therefore, since prior understanding significantly impacts present perception, the therapeutic perception GATLA's training is apt to produce will also be limited. Clearly, this will be how Gestalt therapy is practiced.

I reiterate my earlier point, namely that GATLA's training program presentes a narrowed down version of Gestalt therapy, not Gestalt therapy in its fullest expression and power.

Sylvia Fleming Crocker