26: How to Get All the Parts within You to Work Together (and with Your Partner) with Dick Schwartz

[@midoann]

Yes!!!! Great interviewer. This was the first thing I noticed. Helps he is a good listener, is prepared ( read the book), practice what he studies, studies other theories and techniques and correlates the studies, has a great brain and humble attitude that complements his mind. Thank you, we all benefit.

[@jennifertichelbaut2508]

This has been THE BEST interview with Dick Schwartz! You had THE BEST questions! Thank you so much!

[@diradeb]

What great sound! Thank you. And a fabulous topic xx

[@tulasideviful]

Fascinating what Dick says about the Self as a part of us which can never be destroyed, as it totally resonates with the definition of the soul in Bhagavad Gita 2.17: Know that which pervades the entire body is indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul. 🐚😊

[@ConstancePetot]

You asked all the questions that were floating around in my head as I was listening. Great job! Also a big thank you to Dick Schwartz for sharing his work with us via KZbin, its made a huge impact on my life already!

[@dragonchr15]

Constance Petot Read his book on Self Therapy. Very informative and practical.

[@ginawatson629]

I'm a marriage therapist and I use this model with some of my couples - especially if one of the partners has some childhood trauma. It is a very powerful intervention with couples.

[@raquelr.7185]

This interview was SO powerful. I am always blown away by how Neil listens and engages. It really amplifies the very important messages that the speakers have to share.

[@aleinnasmith7567]

Am so grateful for these understandings, feel love release and relax.

[@mdsullivanne]

Great interview. Appreciated your preparation and asking great questions.

[@JeniJustJeni]

7:00 "we are not in any danger now" *siren wailing in the background* 🤣

[@midoann]

Yes, casualty is amazing

[@peter2f6]

Neil, this was such a beautiful, beautiful interview! Thank you so much good Sir

[@twiliteblogger]

Great interview. Excellent preparation and questions! Thanks to Dick Schwartz for his willingness to be open to an entirely new way of thinking about people and to have the courage to share it with the world.

[@eun-yongkim6955]

Thank you Neil and thank you Dick!!

[@mariamilagrosspeaker]

Great job! I thoroughly enjoyed this whole interview. Thank you.

[@Aluvs1]

This was such an informative interview. I was able to connect Don Miguel Ruiz’s book and the insight Dr. Schwartz and your were referring to. I just found your channel, and if you have not done an interview with Gabor Mate, he’s also a great teacher. I happen to know about Dr. Schwartz and his work through that man. Thanks for this interview, great questions.

[@smartcatcollarproject5699]

After watching 2-3 videos about IFS and Schwartz, I'm quite surprised not to have heard any mention of C.G. Jung, yet... Jung was the first to show how important it is to accept these parts, except he calls them complexes. He also described the Self as numinous and the parts as "autonomous". Also IFS sounds a lot like Voice dialogue therapy.... That said, it sounds like a very practical model in this complex Jungian world.

[@monroe444444]

@@Shaun_Smith23 My guess as someone who is learning this work is that the parts explain themselves as they come forward. Also the idea is not to make them feel further judged or unwanted and so some of the archetypes might have negative connotations for the individual or the parts. That's just my guess though.

[@marinav2218]

Oh, God! My thoughts exactly)) And I felt a bit uneasy about it. I mean what's wrong with the archetypes? They are the parts of ourselves. And we can reach them through our inner work, using many Jungian methods and the ones developed afterwards as well. So, it seems to me that IFS can be used as an instrument in analytical approach.

[@smartcatcollarproject5699]

I'm not a professional, but I suspect that archetypes are not politically correct for our times, I mean, they are autonomous, and can "possess" us humans, does that sound rational to you ? Also reading Jung is a bit like reading computer code, not for anyone, better approach him by reading _about_ his ideas... Still, I hope someone manages to pack the most recent approaches together with the "theory". I like the concept of personality types, MBTI, then Beebe and Hunziker added the shadow functions and attached archetypes to the functions-attitudes, fine. Now getting all these parts/functions to work together in the real world, with a method like IFS or voice dialog, that would be interesting ? Or too complicated ? Dangerous ? Or maybe you can't, as Hunziker writes, paraphrasing Jung "We can't use Sensation with Intuition or Thinking with Feeling simultaneously any more than we can look North and South at the same time." (i.e. don't try to think how to drive or play an instrument, you need to feel it, make it automatic, before you can master it). Same remarks about two other recent "theories", both very effective, practical but again so superficial, limited, in a way : polyvagal theory, and attachement theory... Another quote from the same author to end this long post : "The remedy for archetypal dysfunction is both intimidatingly challenging and ridiculously easy - reminiscent of the 'gateless gate' of Buddhist teachings, in which the forbidding barrier, once passed through, is seen to have never really existed at all. The key is simply _attention_ ".

[@agnesyoutube]

Heads up who is on this journey???☺☺☺ you are not alone xxx

[@__OL__]

Great questions/interview!

[@TheAbergel]

Wonderful.so helpful. Many thanks.

[@goldmarkregal]

That was brilliant! Thank you so much for sharing. I've just subscribed. Clear and specific.. I like that.

[@agnesyoutube]

I thank GOD for this ❤❤❤😄

[@kathleenbrady9916]

I'd love this book but it's so expensive. Are there any used copies (I'll pay reasonable price)that someone would be prepared to mail to me in the UK?

[@NATJANOFF22]

Does anyone have the list of books he mentions

[@brianhoneycutt5938]

Curious, if the couple comes in with all thise issues and unresolved issues with parts, wouldn't they have met each other in order to try to find a redeemer? So is there actually any real foundation for the couple to work with?

[@Andy-uc9oc]

Music too loud, hard to focus on the talking

[@NeilSattin]

Thanks for commenting Andrea'. We did lower the intro music volume on later episodes. :-)

[@nasimmughal6976]

Andrea' M f

[@debrasnook4714]

" not really in any danger right now" .. .. .. .. and the siren's go off in the background. ironic!? yes...

[@amymohanty1045]

It is like different avatar of a same persona...soundss similar to Hindu avatar concept....

[@VaporTrap]

18:50 hahahah

[@VaporTrap]

great vid though, thank you very much!!

[@phyllisjordan1009]

Why" ha ha ha"?Are you aware of more to this discussion that is actually said in the interview?

[@VaporTrap]

it's funny that the interviewer has to explain part of the book to the author

[@phyllisjordan1009]

Yeah, that's indeed funny. Helps to reduce the authenticity of what is shared.

[@phyllisjordan1009]

Brilliant for the interviewer though

[@Schwabian]

Cut the background music, its distracting, and then u sound annoying

[@totalcontrol4205]

Absolutely despise the use of the word 'parts'...prefer aspects.

[@limasah1]

I don’t agree. “Aspects” seems too vague, theoretical. “Parts” is intuitive.

[@annaalcyone6469]

@@limasah1most people relate to parts as most naturally start speaking of their different ‘parts’. That’s why this word Richard chose as he found out it’s relatable to many and simply to understand.❤

[@Schwabian]

Neil, get rid of the hill billy music.. it’s very annoying .. you’re an intelligent interviewer and you don’t need a back up band.. just saying sweetie