Hi Paul and all,

I'm fascinated that you are thinking about your cyclical dynamics in relational terms, which I imagine involves contextualizing these processes, a common theme, I think among all the relational approaches. I, too, am in the process of thinking through the assumptions of all these various relational perspectives: the evolving American Relational sensibility that has emerged from the blending of the traditions of Object relations and interpersonal psychoanalysis, the Intersubjective Systems perspective of Stolorow, et al., relational self-psychological theories that are contextual, relational leanings of some ego-psychologists, dyadic systems thinking of the infant research groups and Boston Change Process group, the application of nonlinear dynamics systems underlying much of the infant research and thinking, as well as underlying embodied cognitive science and brain science that is now beginning to be applied to therapeutic action and change processes. With the increasing bi-directional influence of all these perspectives, as we all engage in conversation with each other, I, more and more appreciate the uniqueness and creativity of the many articulated theories and explanations of therapeutic action and change processes (with our very different languages, assumptions, epistemologies and sensibilities) even as we are becoming more differentiated in articulating particular co-created processes at the local level of specificity that emerge in dyad-specific ways. I think it takes a lot of work and study to really understand the thinking of other theorists and how their perspective works. I think Control-Mastery ideas and cyclical dynamics contribute to both levels and speaking for Control-Mastery, I think the ideas also can be contextualized and expanded through our engagement with other perspectives with one possible outcome being... becoming a voice in an enriching, creative multiplicity or chorus of voices, each with its own voiceprint and (overtone) structure contributing to the whole, which is more than the sum of its parts. I look forward to getting more specific as we go on.

My experience of presenting a difficult case three and a half years ago at a self-psychology conference with 9 discussants from different relational perspectives (Bacal, Lachmann, Nahum, Black, Tolpin, Nebbiosi, Sampson, Coburn and Trop, the last two representing complexity theory and nonlinear dynamic systems) led me to see these different discussions as a set of creative interpretations. The patient (who was intimately involved in the whole presentation from the very first) and I poured over these discussions and the discussants' understandings of our process that led to a richly expanded sense of involvement for each of us in different ways and to an expanded sense of connectednesss and belonging, efficacy, agency, and affective range with each other, and for the patient with her family and friends. The case, discussions, and my response to the discussants (if we have enough pages left in the issue) will be the basis of an upcoming monograph of Psychoanalytic Inquiry.

So more specifically, how are you thinking about your ideas relationally?

Judy Pickles