Why is Gendlin’s philosophy less widely accepted in academic philosophy?

“Why is Gendlin’s philosophy less widely accepted in academic philosophy?”

This question is often discussed in conversations with people studying Gendlin's philosophy as non-Focusers. One reason may be that a few people believe that his philosophy can only be understood by those who have experienced Focusing or TAE sessions on an ongoing basis.

Gendlin’s philosophy can be concrete without falling into abstract speculation because he had fields of psychotherapy or creative thinking methods. Of course, I fully admit it. For example, when reading “A Process Model,” I often come across passages indicating that he was writing while practicing “Thinking at the Edge (TAE)”—his creative thinking method.

However, most academic philosophers believe a philosophical book should be read as independent, separate from any particular experience. Transcendental phenomenologists, for example, are likely to hold such a view. From the point of view of such people, “his philosophy can only be understood by experiencing Focusing or TAE” seems to be a difficult area to enter.