---

ORIGINAL VIDEO & AUDIO – PETER CRONE

This case corresponds to episode 18 of Finding Freedom with Peter Crone:

“Finding Freedom from People Pleasing with Hanane”

published on June 3, 2026, with an approximate duration of 1 hour and 14 minutes.

---

CASE ANALYSIS

PETER CRONE AND AE-7: TWO LEVELS OF READING THE SAME EXPERIENCE

PC-32-En — “To Be Safe, I Cannot Upset Others”

When Keeping the Peace Becomes a Form of Protection and We End Up Giving Up Our Own Expression to Avoid Upsetting Others

Peter Crone and the AE-7 Model — Case Analysis

Peter Crone and the AE-7 Model — Case Analysis in SPANISH >>>

---

Hanane grew up in:

AN UNPREDICTABLE ENVIRONMENT.

From a very young age, she felt that she had to:

KEEP THE PEACE.

And she learned to:

STAY QUIET

BE CAREFUL

HOLD BACK WHAT SHE FELT EMOTIONALLY

in order to:

AVOID CONFLICT

and:

PROTECT THOSE AROUND HER.

Over time, this way of functioning began to affect:

HER RELATIONSHIP WITH HERSELF

HER RELATIONSHIPS

and:

HER CAPACITY TO FULLY EXPRESS WHO SHE IS.

Peter takes the conversation toward the cost of moving through the world as an adult woman:

WITHOUT BEING FREE TO BE HERSELF.

The conversation explores the pressure of not upsetting others, the identities we may adopt in order to feel safe, and the possibility of questioning roles we have maintained for years.

Up to this point, we have elements that come directly from the case.

From here, our:

AE-7 REVERSE ENGINEERING

begins.

---

PEOPLE PLEASING IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PRISON

The episode title refers to:

PEOPLE PLEASING.

But pleasing others fundamentally describes a way of behaving.

For AE-7, this immediately opens a question:

WHAT FUNCTION DOES IT SERVE?

In Hanane, we find several elements that allow us to begin investigating:

AVOIDING CONFLICT

PROTECTING OTHERS

KEEPING THE PEACE

Therefore:

PEOPLE PLEASING

↓

STRATEGY

↓

WHAT FOR?

This question changes the investigation.

If we formulate:

“I HAVE TO PLEASE OTHERS.”

we still do not know what may lie underneath.

We need to continue:

WHAT DO I NEED TO PLEASE OTHERS FOR?

And then:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ME WHEN THE OTHER PERSON GETS UPSET?

This is where Reverse Engineering really begins.

---

A STRATEGY THAT MADE SENSE

From a child’s perspective, trying to keep the peace in an environment experienced as unpredictable may make a great deal of sense.

We can explore whether rules such as these began to appear:

“BE CAREFUL.”

“DON’T UPSET ANYONE.”

“DON’T EXPRESS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT UPSET SOMEONE.”

“TRY TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS OKAY.”

We do not know whether Hanane formulated these conclusions in exactly these words.

We do not need to attribute words to her that she did not say.

They serve as questions for investigation, helping us move closer to the meaning that conflict, emotional expression, and other people’s reactions may have acquired for her.

A child does not necessarily think:

“I’M GOING TO BECOME A PEOPLE PLEASER.”

She is trying to solve something.

The question is:

WHAT?

---

THE RADAR TOWARD OTHERS

If, before expressing myself, I constantly need to check:

HOW THE OTHER PERSON IS FEELING

WHAT THE OTHER PERSON NEEDS

WHAT MIGHT UPSET THEM

HOW THEY MIGHT REACT

my attention may gradually shift.

From:

“WHAT DO I FEEL?”

toward:

“HOW ARE THEY FEELING?”

From:

“WHAT DO I WANT?”

toward:

“WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS OKAY?”

Sensitivity toward others can be an extraordinary capacity:

PERCEIVING · LISTENING · NOTICING TENSION · BEING CONSIDERATE · HAVING EMPATHY

The problem is not the capacity itself.

The question is:

WHEN DOES A CAPACITY BECOME AN OBLIGATION?

We can move from:

“I CAN NOTICE HOW YOU ARE FEELING.”

to:

“I HAVE TO KNOW HOW YOU ARE FEELING.”

And from:

“I CAN TAKE YOUR EMOTIONS INTO ACCOUNT.”

to:

“I HAVE TO PREVENT YOU FROM GETTING UPSET.”

Then sensitivity may become:

VIGILANCE.

The difference is not necessarily in what we do.

It may be in:

THE INNER PLACE FROM WHICH WE NEED TO DO IT.

---

WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN SOMEONE GETS UPSET?

We now reach a fundamental question.

Hanane tries to keep the peace.

But:

WHAT IS AT STAKE WHEN THE PEACE DISAPPEARS?

The same behavior may be trying to resolve completely different internal experiences.

If what appears is:

“If someone gets upset, something bad may happen.”

we can explore:

SAFETY

If what appears is:

“If someone gets upset with me, I may lose the connection.”

we can explore:

BELONGING

If what appears is:

“If someone gets upset with me, it means I have done something wrong.”

we can explore:

ADEQUACY

If what appears is:

“What I need matters less than what others need.”

we can explore:

SIGNIFICANCE

If what appears is:

“If the other person is upset by what I feel, perhaps I cannot trust my own experience.”

we can explore:

INNER AUTHORITY

The external behavior may be exactly the same:

PLEASING OTHERS.

But the architecture organizing it may be different.

Therefore:

A STRATEGY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY TELL US WHAT THE ROOT IS.

THE MAP GUIDES. THE PERSON REVEALS THE MEANING.

---

SAFETY: A HYPOTHESIS WORTH EXPLORING

In Hanane’s material, there is one particularly significant element:

AN UNPREDICTABLE ENVIRONMENT

together with:

AVOIDING CONFLICT · PROTECTING · KEEPING THE PEACE

This gives us reason to explore one of the AE-7 territories:

SAFETY

AM I SAFE, AND WILL I BE ABLE TO HANDLE WHAT HAPPENS?

We do not need to conclude that Safety is necessarily the root.

But we can ask:

What happened for Hanane when conflict appeared?

What did she anticipate?

What did she need to avoid?

What could happen if another person became upset?

What did she feel in those moments?

If keeping the peace was not merely a preference but something she felt she had to do, we can investigate what experience made that strategy necessary.

---

A POSSIBLE PRISON

From the available elements, we can formulate a hypothesis:

“TO BE SAFE, I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS.”

We are not claiming that Hanane literally used these words.

Nor are we claiming that we have already found the definitive root of the case.

We use it as a provisional formulation that allows us to investigate a possible architecture:

UNPREDICTABLE ENVIRONMENT

↓

POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT

↓

ACTIVATION

↓

“I HAVE TO KEEP THE PEACE.”

↓

STAYING QUIET · ADAPTING · HOLDING BACK · PLEASING OTHERS

↓

REDUCTION OF CONFLICT

↓

RELIEF

↓

“ADAPTING SEEMS TO PROTECT ME.”

If this sequence approximates Hanane’s experience, the strategy would not be absurd or a defect that needs to be eliminated.

It would have served a function.

---

WHEN CONFLICT IS EXPERIENCED AS DANGER

If, at certain moments in our biography:

CONFLICT → THREAT

our organism may later continue responding as though the two were equivalent.

But we need to introduce an important distinction:

CONFLICT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN DANGER.

Disagreement can exist without violence.

Anger can exist without destroying the relationship.

Disappointment can exist without meaning that we have done something wrong.

And, at the same time:

NOT ALL CONFLICT IS SAFE.

Therefore, the movement is not about learning:

“CONFLICT IS NEVER DANGEROUS.”

That would simply replace one generalization with another.

The movement is about recovering the capacity to:

DIFFERENTIATE.

WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE AND NOW?

IS THERE ACTUALLY DANGER?

OR IS MY ORGANISM RESPONDING TO A POSSIBILITY AS THOUGH IT WERE A CERTAINTY?

---

DISAGREEMENT, DISAPPOINTMENT, AND REJECTION

We can also investigate some possible equivalences.

“I DON’T AGREE WITH YOU”

does not necessarily mean:

“I DON’T LOVE YOU.”

“I’M UPSET”

does not necessarily mean:

“YOU ARE IN DANGER.”

And:

“YOU HAVE DISAPPOINTED ME”

does not necessarily mean:

“THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.”

Likewise:

DISAPPOINTING SOMEONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN HARMING THEM.

Someone may be disappointed because I say:

NO.

That alone does not prove that my decision is wrong.

It may simply mean:

THE OTHER PERSON WANTED SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

---

THE IMPOSSIBLE RESPONSIBILITY

Within this architecture, another rule may also appear:

“IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS OKAY.”

If it does, an important distinction becomes necessary.

I can be responsible for:

MY WORDS

MY DECISIONS

MY BEHAVIOR

HOW I EXPRESS A BOUNDARY

REPAIRING WHEN I CAUSE HARM

But I cannot completely control:

OTHER PEOPLE’S EMOTIONS

THEIR EXPECTATIONS

THEIR INTERPRETATIONS

THEIR DISAPPOINTMENT

THEIR ANGER

This allows us to distinguish:

RESPONSIBILITY

from:

CONTROL OVER THE OTHER PERSON’S EXPERIENCE.

---

INNER AUTHORITY: ANOTHER TERRITORY TO EXPLORE

When attention remains constantly oriented outward, there may be less space available to listen to:

WHAT DO I FEEL?

WHAT DO I WANT?

WHAT DO I NEED?

WHAT DON’T I WANT?

WHAT IS MY BOUNDARY?

This opens another territory for investigation:

INNER AUTHORITY

CAN I TRUST MY OWN EXPERIENCE?

Not because paying attention to others automatically demonstrates a difficulty with Inner Authority.

The question appears when:

WHAT I FEEL

comes into conflict with:

WHAT THE OTHER PERSON WANTS.

Then we can investigate:

CAN I CONTINUE TRUSTING WHAT I FEEL WHEN THE OTHER PERSON DOESN’T LIKE IT?

---

THE BOUNDARY AS INFORMATION

For someone organized around keeping the peace, saying:

NO

may activate:

FEAR · GUILT · ANTICIPATION · NEED TO EXPLAIN · NEED TO COMPENSATE

A boundary may be experienced as though it means:

REJECTION

CONFLICT

LACK OF LOVE

or even:

DANGER.

But a boundary can also simply be:

INFORMATION ABOUT ME.

“THIS IS WHAT I WANT.”

“THIS IS WHAT I DON’T WANT.”

“THIS IS WHAT I CAN DO.”

“THIS IS WHAT I CAN’T DO.”

The AE-7 question returns:

WHAT DOES SETTING A BOUNDARY MEAN TO ME?

We do not assume the answer.

We investigate it.

---

THE PRICE OF KEEPING THE PEACE

The strategy may work.

Hanane detects tension.

She adapts.

The tension decreases.

Relief appears.

The organism may learn:

“ADAPTING WORKS.”

That is precisely why a strategy can remain in place for years.

But we also need to observe its cost.

The case description indicates that this way of living begins to affect her relationship with herself, her relationships, and her capacity to fully express who she is.

We can represent it like this:

EXTERNAL PEACE

↓

STAYING QUIET · ADAPTING · HOLDING BACK

↓

LESS EXPRESSION OF MY NEEDS AND BOUNDARIES

↓

GREATER ATTENTION TO OTHER PEOPLE’S REACTIONS

↓

LESS CONTACT WITH WHAT I WANT

↓

GREATER NEED TO ADAPT

The strategy that attempts to solve a difficulty may begin to contribute to maintaining the same circuit.

---

THE PRISON BECOMES SELF-CONFIRMING

An especially important mechanism appears here.

If I fear:

“IF I EXPRESS WHAT I REALLY WANT, I MAY UPSET SOMEONE.”

and, in order to avoid that:

I DO NOT EXPRESS IT

I have fewer opportunities to discover what actually happens when I do express it.

The prediction remains largely untested.

Not because we know in advance that expressing myself will go well.

But because:

AVOIDING THE EXPERIENCE ALSO PREVENTS US FROM OBTAINING NEW INFORMATION.

I can spend years avoiding what I fear and, precisely because I avoid it, have few experiences that allow me to distinguish:

WHAT I FEAR WILL HAPPEN

from:

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

---

WHEN A STRATEGY LOOKS LIKE OUR PERSONALITY

A strategy repeated for years may begin to feel like:

“THAT’S JUST WHO I AM.”

“I’M EASYGOING.”

“I DON’T LIKE CONFLICT.”

“I LIKE HELPING.”

“I DON’T NEED MUCH.”

Some of these characteristics may be completely genuine.

We do not need to turn the entire personality into an adaptation.

The question is different:

WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

STAYING QUIET TO FEEL SAFE

does not necessarily mean:

I AM A QUIET PERSON.

ADAPTING TO AVOID CONFLICT

does not necessarily mean:

I AM NATURALLY FLEXIBLE.

NOT ASKING FOR THINGS SO I DON’T UPSET OTHERS

does not mean:

I HAVE NO NEEDS.

A capacity can be genuine and, at the same time, have been used as a protective strategy.

---

“I AM NOT FREE TO BE MYSELF”

Here one of the central elements of the case appears.

The strategy that sought to protect may end up limiting adult expression.

The question is no longer only:

“HOW DO I STOP PLEASING OTHERS?”

It can become:

“WHO AM I WHEN I NO LONGER NEED TO CONSTANTLY ORGANIZE MYSELF AROUND OTHER PEOPLE’S REACTIONS?”

If I continually ask:

“WHAT DO YOU WANT?”

I may lose contact with:

“WHAT DO I WANT?”

If I continually ask:

“ARE YOU OKAY?”

I may leave little space for:

“AM I OKAY?”

If I continually ask:

“DOES THIS UPSET YOU?”

I may forget to ask:

“DOES THIS UPSET ME?”

We do not need to move from always looking at the other person to no longer looking at them at all.

We need to:

INCLUDE MYSELF TOO.

---

QUESTIONING THE PRISON

If the formulation:

“TO BE SAFE, I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS.”

approximates Hanane’s experience, we can begin investigating it.

Not to immediately replace it with:

“I CAN UPSET EVERYONE AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.”

But to ask:

Is it true in every situation?

What exactly does “upset” mean?

Does someone becoming angry necessarily mean that I am in danger?

Does someone being disappointed mean that I have done something wrong?

Can I express a need and allow the other person to have their own reaction?

Can I distinguish between causing harm and not meeting someone’s expectation?

Which part of the responsibility belongs to me, and which belongs to the other person?

Questioning does not mean denying what happened.

It means investigating whether a conclusion that may have made sense under certain circumstances needs to continue organizing every situation in the present.

---

BEFORE THE STRATEGY

So far, we have mainly observed what Hanane learned to do:

STAY QUIET

HOLD BACK

OBSERVE

ADAPT

KEEP THE PEACE

PROTECT

But we can open another question:

WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE SHE NEEDED TO DO ALL OF THAT?

Here we enter a different territory.

We are not trying to construct an explanation that the material does not contain.

We do not know exactly what specific experiences gave rise to each adaptation.

Nor do we know what emotion would appear if Hanane explored those moments.

Therefore, we do not need to decide in advance whether we would find:

FEAR

SADNESS

POWERLESSNESS

LONELINESS

ANGER

or any other experience.

We can simply investigate:

WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE ENVIRONMENT BECAME UNPREDICTABLE?

HOW DID THAT CHILD EXPERIENCE IT?

WHAT DID SHE FEEL IN HER BODY?

WHAT DID SHE NEED?

WHAT COULD SHE NOT EXPRESS?

WHAT DID SHE HAVE TO LEARN TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THROUGH THAT SITUATION?

Perhaps the journey was something like:

EXPERIENCE

↓

EMOTION

↓

NEED

↓

SURVIVAL STRATEGY

↓

ADAPTATION

↓

GENERALIZATION

But we do not need to impose that sequence.

The person and her experience will determine what appears.

---

WHAT I NEEDED TO DO THEN

This distinction may be fundamental.

We are not trying to tell the child:

“YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE ADAPTED.”

Perhaps adapting was intelligent.

Perhaps observing was useful.

Perhaps staying quiet protected something important.

Perhaps trying to keep the peace was the best possibility she could find at that time.

Therefore, we do not need to fight the strategy.

We can acknowledge it:

“THIS SERVED A FUNCTION.”

And then introduce a new question:

IS WHAT I NEEDED TO DO THEN THE SAME AS WHAT I NEED TO DO NOW?

There we begin to differentiate:

PAST

from:

PRESENT.

---

THE NEW EXPERIENCE

Transformation does not need to consist only of intellectually understanding:

“I DON’T HAVE TO PLEASE OTHERS ANYMORE.”

We need to recover the capacity to choose and allow different experiences.

For example:

I EXPRESS A PREFERENCE

↓

someone disagrees

↓

I OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENS.

Or:

I SAY NO

↓

someone is disappointed

↓

I OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENS IN ME, IN THE OTHER PERSON, AND IN THE RELATIONSHIP.

Or:

I EXPRESS A NEED

↓

the other person reacts

↓

I DIFFERENTIATE THEIR REACTION FROM MY RIGHT TO EXPRESS MYSELF.

The new experience does not consist of guaranteeing that no one gets angry.

It consists of discovering:

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I STOP AUTOMATICALLY ORGANIZING MY BEHAVIOR AROUND AVOIDING EVERY POSSIBLE REACTION FROM OTHERS?

---

“I CAN UPSET OTHERS”

Perhaps one of the most challenging formulations for this architecture is:

“I CAN UPSET OTHERS.”

It does not mean:

“I WANT TO UPSET OTHERS.”

Nor does it mean:

“I DON’T CARE HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL.”

It means:

“I DO NOT NEED TO ORGANIZE MY ENTIRE LIFE AROUND GUARANTEEING THAT NO ONE GETS UPSET.”

I can be respectful.

I can listen.

I can communicate.

I can repair when I make a mistake.

And at the same time recognize:

I CANNOT COMPLETELY CONTROL HOW EVERY PERSON WILL REACT.

---

FROM ADAPTATION TO CHOICE

We do not need to reject the strategy.

We can acknowledge:

“THIS SERVED A FUNCTION.”

Staying quiet may have served a function.

Observing may have served a function.

Adapting may have served a function.

Keeping the peace may have served a function.

And then investigate:

“DO I NEED TO USE THIS STRATEGY AUTOMATICALLY NOW?”

Here the possibility of recovering choice appears.

Hanane can continue being:

EMPATHETIC

CONSIDERATE

CAREFUL

ATTENTIVE

without those qualities always needing to be organized around fear of other people’s reactions.

Before:

“I HAVE TO BE CONSIDERATE IN ORDER TO BE SAFE.”

After:

“I CAN BE CONSIDERATE BECAUSE I WANT TO.”

The external behavior may look identical.

THE INTERNAL ARCHITECTURE MAY BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

---

THE SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION OF PC-32-En TO THE AE-7 MODEL

PC-32-En allows us to observe a particularly important distinction:

A STRATEGY DOES NOT TELL US WHAT THE PRISON IS.

Two people can do exactly the same thing:

PLEASE OTHERS.

But they may do it from different architectures.

One may please others because:

“IF THERE IS CONFLICT, I MAY BE IN DANGER.”

→ SAFETY

Another:

“IF THEY DON’T LIKE ME, I MAY LOSE MY PLACE.”

→ BELONGING

Another:

“IF THEY GET UPSET WITH ME, IT MEANS I HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.”

→ ADEQUACY

Another:

“WHAT THE OTHER PERSON NEEDS MATTERS MORE THAN WHAT I NEED.”

→ SIGNIFICANCE

Another:

“IF THE OTHER PERSON THINKS I AM WRONG, I NO LONGER KNOW WHETHER I CAN TRUST WHAT I FEEL.”

→ INNER AUTHORITY

That is why AE-7 does not classify based on behavior.

It asks:

WHAT DO I DO THIS FOR?

And then:

WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE FOR THIS STRATEGY TO MAKE SENSE?

That is where Emotional Reverse Engineering begins.

---

SUMMARY OF THE ARCHITECTURE

After exploring the case, we can bring together the main hypotheses that have appeared.

They do not constitute a diagnosis of Hanane.

They are a map for continuing to investigate her experience.

EXPERIENCE

UNPREDICTABLE ENVIRONMENT · CONFLICT · NEED TO KEEP THE PEACE

↓

MEANING TO INVESTIGATE

“WHEN SOMEONE BECOMES UPSET, SOMETHING IMPORTANT MAY BE AT RISK.”

↓

MAIN ROOT TO EXPLORE

SAFETY

“AM I SAFE, AND WILL I BE ABLE TO HANDLE WHAT HAPPENS?”

↓

POSSIBLE PRISON

“TO BE SAFE, I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS.”

↓

RULES

“I HAVE TO KEEP THE PEACE.”

“I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL.”

“I MUST NOT CREATE CONFLICT.”

↓

STRATEGIES

PLEASING OTHERS · STAYING QUIET · ADAPTING · HOLDING BACK · ANTICIPATING · APPEASING

↓

IMMEDIATE RESULT

LESS TENSION · LESS CONFLICT · RELIEF

↓

LEARNING

“ADAPTING SEEMS TO PROTECT ME.”

↓

COST

LESS EXPRESSION · LESS CONTACT WITH NEEDS AND BOUNDARIES · GREATER ATTENTION TO OTHER PEOPLE’S REACTIONS

↓

SELF-CONFIRMATION

AVOIDING EXPRESSING MYSELF REDUCES MY OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCOVER WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DO EXPRESS MYSELF

↓

ASSOCIATED TERRITORIES TO EXPLORE

INNER AUTHORITY · BELONGING · ADEQUACY · SIGNIFICANCE

↓

POSSIBLE MOVEMENT

FROM REACTION TO CHOICE

“I CAN LISTEN TO YOUR REACTION WITHOUT AUTOMATICALLY ABANDONING MY OWN EXPERIENCE.”

---

THE MOVEMENT OF PC-32-En

Transformation does not consist of moving from:

PLEASING OTHERS

to:

NOT TAKING ANYONE ELSE INTO ACCOUNT.

Nor from:

“ONLY OTHER PEOPLE MATTER.”

to:

“ONLY I MATTER.”

We can preserve:

EMPATHY · CONSIDERATION · CARE · SENSITIVITY

and include something that may have been left out:

ME TOO.

I can consider your feelings without automatically becoming responsible for them.

I can listen to your needs without abandoning my own.

I can acknowledge your disappointment without automatically concluding that I have done something wrong.

I can observe your anger and ask myself what it actually means in this situation.

I can set a boundary and discover what happens.

I can continue being considerate without needing to use consideration to guarantee my safety.

The movement can be expressed like this:

BEFORE

“HOW DO I MAKE SURE NO ONE GETS UPSET?”

NOW

“WHAT IS HAPPENING, AND WHAT DO I CHOOSE TO DO?”

BEFORE

“YOUR REACTION DETERMINES WHAT I CAN EXPRESS.”

NOW

“I CAN LISTEN TO YOUR REACTION WITHOUT AUTOMATICALLY ABANDONING MY OWN EXPERIENCE.”

BEFORE

REACTION

NOW

CHOICE

Sensitivity remains.

Empathy remains.

Consideration can remain.

What begins to change is the need to use them as protection.

THE MAP GUIDES. THE PERSON REVEALS THE MEANING.

---

THREE PERSPECTIVES ON THE SAME CASE

The AE-7 Model explores the emotional architecture that may be organizing our experience.

We can broaden this investigation in two other complementary directions:

toward the system we belong to, through Family Constellations, and toward the different stages of our own biography, through Personal Constellations.

The three perspectives begin from different angles and explore different dimensions of the same experience.

PC-32-En · AE-7 MODEL

Explores the emotional architecture that may be organizing the experience.

WHAT EMOTIONAL ARCHITECTURE IS ORGANIZING MY EXPERIENCE?

PC-32-A-En · FAMILY CONSTELLATIONS

Broadens the perspective toward the system we belong to.

WHAT APPEARS WHEN I OBSERVE MYSELF IN RELATION TO MY SYSTEM?

Continue → PC-32-A-En — “To Be Safe, I Can’t Upset Others” Through Family Constellations

PC-32-B-En · PERSONAL CONSTELLATIONS

Broadens the perspective toward the different stages of our own biography.

WHAT APPEARS WHEN I OBSERVE MY DIFFERENT AGES AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM?

Continue → PC-32-B-En — “To Be Safe, I Can’t Upset Others” Through Personal Constellations

None of these perspectives needs to invalidate the others.

Each allows us to explore a different dimension of the experience.

THE MAP GUIDES. THE PERSON REVEALS THE MEANING.