Phenomenology and the psychotherapeutic method derived from it are one of the basic foundations of dialogue-phenomenological psychotherapy. However, since the phenomenological method is “adopted” by many areas of modern psychotherapy, within the framework of this work there is a need to determine the originality with which it is used within the framework of experiential psychotherapy. Dialogue-phenomenological psychotherapy is, by and large, statement psychotherapy. The only adequate basis for the therapist's intervention is the natural phenomenological dynamics of the field. More precisely, its current context. But what is most important is that the intervention is determined by this very context, not the therapist. The latter serves as a professional conductor of the intervention. In a sense, it is not the therapist who chooses the intervention, but the intervention itself that chooses him. At the moment of the intervention itself, she and the therapist conducting it are essentially indistinguishable. It may be unusual for you to hear this, but try to hold this thesis in your mind. Let him penetrate your ideas about the essence of psychotherapy. This is a kind of new look at the nature of what you already observe every day in psychotherapy. This is simply a different point of assembly of professional consciousness, which, nevertheless, can radically change your practice. We are accustomed to thinking that the source of the phenomenological flow is one or another subject of contact. His consciousness gives rise to certain phenomena, which, following each other, form contact and the entire phenomenological field. If another subject appears next to this subject and they turn their attention to each other, then a contact occurs (more precisely, it can happen), which is saturated from a phenomenological point of view with phenomena that, as before, are produced by both participants in this meeting. At least, this state of affairs is obvious from the point of view of the individualistic consciousness of Western man. This is where the possible resources of psychotherapy come from. In particular, Gestalt therapy. By forming contact with the therapist in a way that is familiar to him or by talking about relationships with other people, the client evokes certain reactions from the therapist, which, as you understand, are the phenomena of the “last”. Next, guided by one or another therapeutic hypothesis that appears in response to an attempt to analyze the emerging phenomena, the therapist formulates an appropriate intervention aimed at creating a new experience in the client or expanding awareness. Of course, in doing so, he takes into account, explicitly or implicitly, the client’s medical history, the history of the development of the therapeutic relationship, assumptions about the type of organization of his personality, the therapeutic prognosis, etc. Each intervention is appropriate. To summarize the line related to the use of the phenomenological method, I would emphasize that in the most general form, the phenomena that appear to the therapist are a source of change and influence on the client’s phenomenology. Let’s return to dialogue-phenomenological psychotherapy. From this point of view, both the therapist and the client are nothing more than a certain actual set of phenomena that belong to field dynamics, which, let me remind you, is regulated by two field vectors - experience and concepts. This is the nature of the field. You and I are, in a sense, “extracts” from it. Or more precisely, segments of the field, the phenomenological design of which is formed (and is formed every second) by experience and concepts. The latter - to a greater extent. It is for this reason that any phenomenon that appears in the field belongs only to the situation of the field. Any attempts to attribute it to any of the segments distort the reality of the nature of the field. What impact does this transformation of phenomenology have on psychotherapeutic practice? It inevitably affects the professional position of the therapist. Now he is not the source of field phenomena, but an observer of its phenomenological dynamics. Moreover, any phenomenon that appeared in contact by the very fact of itsappearance is attributed to the contact – i.e. both therapist and client. Therefore, the therapist’s task changes significantly - he is a trained observer in the field, who notes what is happening in contact, gives the opportunity to form one or another intervention and voices it in therapy. As I have already said, experiential psychotherapy is a statemental psychotherapy, and not a project of facilitating personal change. But in fairness, it is worth noting another important point - the statement of the phenomenon in this case is not just a registration of what is already available in the field. No – this is also the way it is formed. The field thus forms itself, ensuring its dynamics. The field does not exist in isolation from its agents. Outside of their presence and experience, it would be a certain set of possibilities. A kind of superposition of its possible states. Let’s move on, since new questions cannot help but arise here. For example, how are certain interventions based on the observation of phenomena? The observer is able to keep from 5 to 9 objects in his area of ​​attention. However, since the field of our awareness is a dynamic of figure and ground, a therapist trained in awareness is at least potentially aware of several dozen phenomena simultaneously. This is the range within which a therapeutic intervention can be designed. Further, as I have already said, there is a possible alternative in which the therapist can process this range of phenomena with the concept or free act of choice that is the agent of experience. Experiential psychotherapy, of course, proposes an appeal to free choice. This means that from the entire wealth of field phenomena, I, as a therapist, select several of them that present the context and make an appropriate intervention. It is important to emphasize here that the basis for intervention is precisely the context, i.e. several phenomena related to each other by natural valency. An intervention based on a single phenomenon is usually very unstable due to its vagueness. For example, if you simply want to share with the client your current feeling, “I feel hurt,” you will most likely see a surprised or confused face opposite you. But if, within the framework of one intervention, the entire phenomenological context in which this feeling is embedded is heard, albeit briefly, then the dynamics of the field can be significantly transformed, and the client will most likely be impressed by this. For example, the intervention “When you talked about your relationship with your father, I felt pain that ... (here is a link to a specific episode), and I wanted to ...” is much more stable and potentially more effective in terms of supporting the experience. In addition, for this purpose In order for your intervention not just to slightly enrich the phenomenological context of the therapy, but to contribute to the experience, it is important that it be carried out in contact with a high degree of psychological presence. If you simply say the appropriate phrase, nothing in the contact will most likely change. But if you are present with your heart in your intervention, it is more likely to form the basis of the experience. Let's say we made an intervention. What's next? Is this the end of our work or not? Of course no. Your therapeutic intervention is designed to support the natural phenomenological dynamics of the field. Therefore, if the conditions are right and it reaches the heart of your client, then it inevitably transforms the phenomenological context. For example, in response to it, the client’s state of mind changed, certain feelings or desires appeared - moreover, new phenomena appeared both in him and in you. Again, any of them, within the appropriate context, can form the basis of another intervention. In other words, we can either ask the client to tell us personally what is happening to him now, or build an intervention based on “his” phenomena. And this is again a matter of choice. It is important that the intervention is freely chosen and placed in contact with a high degree of.