roles, races, religious creeds, politi cal structures, and masks. (These attitudes are much needed in the political situation today.) Thus, in therapy, as early as 1951 he emphasized therapist attitudes because earlier presentations over emphasized technique (p. 19). He wrote: Our concern has shifted from counselor technique to counselor attitude and philoso phy (p. 14).By emphasizing the attitudes, however, Rogers did not elabo rate specifically on the process of referring to the direct referent. For example, in his comments regarding the two previous quotes from his clients, Rogers stated that it was the acceptant attitude of the therapist that brought about the changes in the clients. True, the therapists acceptance and the therapists attention toward the internal frame of reference of the client were essential for the interview; however, these attitudes do not explain specifically why the therapists reflections would bring me back to earth.The process of referring to a direct referent and the ensuing changes that occur in the client was later articulated in detail by Eugene Gendlins (1964) theory of experiencing. EXPERIENCING AND CARL ROGERSS CONCEPTS Apparently, Rogers maintained a keen interest in the concept of experiencing as elaborated by Gendlin. However, to us, it appears that Rogers had to make efforts to reconcile or to integrate the experiencing process into his own concepts regarding the therapist attitudes of empathy, acceptance, and congruence. In the chapter, The Process Conception of Psychotherapy, Rogers (1961) elabo rated on the process of experiencing and thereby described the cli ents process of referring to the direct referent. However, as Rogers himself acknowledged, this chapter borrowed heavily from Eugene Gendlin and much of this chapter was actually quoted from Gendlin. In a chapter originally published in 1975 (Rogers, 1980), Rogers finally took in Gendlins concept of experiencing and wrote:I have drawn on the concept of experiencing as formulated by Gendlin (1962).. . . Gendlins view with which I concur, is that he is checking them against his ongoing psychophysiological flow within himself to see if they fit. This flow is a real thing and people are able to use it as a referent. In this case, angry doesnt match the felt meaning at all, dissatisfied comes closer. (pp. 141 142)Here, Rogers explicitly uses the word referent and then goes on to explain a transcript of his session with a case (Mrs. Oak) illus trating Gendlins experiential theory.However, in the same chapter, we can find Rogerss (1980) clas sic views regarding reference, expressed as labeled in awareness (Italics added): It seems to me that only when a gut level experi ence is fully accepted and accurately labeled in awareness, can it be completed....Itisthe sensitive empathic climate that helps to more experiencing forward to its conclusion, which in this case is the uninhibited experiencing of (p. 158).These quotes demonstrate the classic views of Carl Rogers. He emphasized that acceptance and empathy were the preconditions that make referring possible. He has incorporated the phenome non of referring and experiencing but maintained the view that the empathic and acceptant attitude of the therapist makes, or helps, the experiential process.REFERENCE