That comment is surprising to me. I didn’t understand the Hegelian dialectic about talking to internal parts. Which authors do describe the Hegelian dialectic as part work?
I’m not aware of anyone describing dialectic in that way. I would instead say that the double crux seems to me a more highly specified version of the dialectical method with specific instructions on how to carry it out. To be fair this is arguably a useful invention since it’s helping people carry out dialectics in a particular way at least rather than not at all.
There are plenty of other techniques for dealing with internal parts. To the extend that CFAR reinvented the wheel I think it makes more sense to focus on other parts work.
NLP has 6-step reframing. Family systems therapy has it’s own methods. Even older paradigms like various forms of shamanism have their own methods for doing part work.
Those techniques are direct competitors to Internal Double Crux and worthy to be compared to it for the applications of the technique.
That comment is surprising to me. I didn’t understand the Hegelian dialectic about talking to internal parts. Which authors do describe the Hegelian dialectic as part work?
I’m not aware of anyone describing dialectic in that way. I would instead say that the double crux seems to me a more highly specified version of the dialectical method with specific instructions on how to carry it out. To be fair this is arguably a useful invention since it’s helping people carry out dialectics in a particular way at least rather than not at all.
There are plenty of other techniques for dealing with internal parts. To the extend that CFAR reinvented the wheel I think it makes more sense to focus on other parts work.
NLP has 6-step reframing. Family systems therapy has it’s own methods. Even older paradigms like various forms of shamanism have their own methods for doing part work. Those techniques are direct competitors to Internal Double Crux and worthy to be compared to it for the applications of the technique.