On earlier days' statare or agricultural laborer receiving allowance in kind - and the superclass then and now…

We don’t really believe in getting together to fight for things (together) in this society (we are solely individualists and not dependent on other people, neither on good nor on bad things other people do)?

At least we grassroots don't any more, we don't group as we did? Because we don't need it? Don't we?

But see about the power elites and the superclass below. They get together and group (but how? But that's another thread and discussion)!

Instead the individuals (some at least) try to make their voices heard entirely on their own. Individuals are screaming their voices hoarse? In an ocean of screaming voices are anybody really heard? Or whose and what voices are heard? Some have quite cynically given everything up. Or given up in a feeling of powerlessness (even if this feeing isn’t actual always).

And what about whistle blowers? Individuals daring to speak up (on their own) with no support and no backing?

Can individuals (genuinely autonomous, i.e. genuinely independent) exist in (a healthy) collective? Yes, I think that is possible. But in less healthy systems (group, political party, country etc.) there is an either/or, not a BOTH individual AND collective (and what is true, genuine individuality? Is individualism this? Can so called "individualism" be a disguised standardization? Practical for the power? Is individualism the same as being your true self, being personal, truly, genuinely unique?)?

Back 30-40 years many young people lived in collectives, some even with kids and families. But today those living in those collectives don’t believe in ANY collective solutions!? Yeah, maybe for very good reasons? Or?

Some say

“We have to trust people!”

At the same time people are not trusted! People are said to use the systems for instance. And thus we can’t trust anybody? And the people that are working hard are punished too for those misusing systems and things. A kind of collective punishment.

Think if one could move to an isolated island somewhere and get away from all this!?

Yes, some have said that you can trust too much AND too little.

Why can’t some people trust maybe at all?

And what about those trusting too much?

How was it in older days with people falling behind chairs? If a child lost both his/her parents and if it had no relatives? Who took care of those? Who saw so they got food and shelter? If a child was born disabled what did this mean? This child became a heavy burden to its parents a whole life?

If you couldn’t support yourself you had to rely on other peoples’ kindness and good will? Were all people in the society kind and good people helping the help needing? Were it the ones with most resources (in form of wealth, health, money) who helped those incapable of taking care of themselves because of low age, because they were disabled maybe already from they were born?

The one with less resources were they the ones that least of all cared?

Who cared less and contributed less is my silent wonder?

How often did infanticides occur because a child was born disabled because it would mean a too heavy burden for a family? How did one treat old people who were of no use anymore?

Who took care of people needing care (the truly, genuinely weak) of any kind? They could founder? And often foundered?

Children (especially to poor people) were auctioned off (for instance because one or both parents had died and they had no relatives who could take care of them) less than 100 years ago here, I think, to the ones taking them for less money. Like they were livestock. And they were also workers in the families where they landed, thus actual livestock (and child workers exist in this word today. And it existed during the 60's). Yes, they were workers at a very early age.

According to a now 29 year old woman the institutions she grew up in were better than (ELEVEN different) foster homes (in which she got abused, for instance sexually). So families paid for taking care of children aren't always so good today either! Institutions seem to be better according to this young woman. But institutions were bad here earlier too (and not so long ago).

Less than one hundred years ago (I think even to around 1940!!) we had agricultural laborer receiving allowance in kind. They had nothing else to sell than their workforce. And it wasn’t valued highly… They were tied to their employer, till they were of no use anymore. Totally in the hands of the good will of their master and the landowner (earlier days superclass, though those days "superclass" had limited power compared to the superclass today?).

Some women sold their bodies (women are doing this still), because they had nothing else to sell (they believed?) or nothing else to trade.

How did earlier societies take care of those needing care?

Also see about the truck system:

“A truck system is an arrangement in which employees are paid in commodities or scrip rather than with standard money. This limits their ability to choose how to spend their earnings—generally to the benefit of the employer. As an example, scrip might only be able to be used for the purchase of goods at a 'company store' where prices are set artificially high.

While this system had long existed in many parts of the world, it became widespread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as industrialization left many poor, unskilled workers without other means to support themselves and their families. The practice has been widely criticized as exploitative and similar in effect to slavery, and has been outlawed in many parts of the world. Variations of the truck system have existed world-wide, and are known by various names.”

The earliest coins were used already in old Greece.

Also came to think about the power elite(s), and the super class and oppression (the elites are getting together, grouping, while we grassroots are divided and ruled) and also about being obedient and keeping quiet ( and private egoism).

From an earlier posting (about the super class):

We had thralls or trälar (slaves) too here in Scandinavia, for instance during the Viking-era. And later people were held as thralls, but in another sense. They weren't literally in villenage, but still villains in many senses.

Apropos the book ”Superclass; The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” by David Rothkopf a commentator on a blog wrote about oppression, here my a little free translation and additions:

“One can scream oneself blue and it doesn’t matter or make any difference. But remember that the power, the oppression is dependent on psychology to a large degree. It’s dependent on that there are enough stupid people. Not unintelligent, of course, but self-righteous and dumb (foolish, stupid).”

The blog-owner replied:

“Of course you are right, and do you know this is also what David Rothkopf points out, he means that it’s ‘smooth’ for the superclass to govern so long as the voters in the democracies don’t take their responsibility and inform themselves so they can vote rationally.”

Yes, the power has interests in that the people under them don’t!?

For instance, we should all be interested that all people got enlightened! That all had good schools for instance, and had the same chances getting good education, with well-educated teachers (in all respects).

How do we deal with power abuse for instance? Do we deal with this individually?

Thoughts during a quite hectic morning April 23 (dentist and hairdresser): My maternal grandfather worked full time as chauffeur (car, truck and bus) and had one week off (vacation) each year, at most. And long workdays. They (he and my grandmother with four kids) also supported themselves with having cows, and sometimes a pig and hens I think. This meant that he had to get up early in the morning, start a fire so the house got warm, go out and feed the cow(s), milk it (them), and then go to work. When he came home he had to milk the cow again and give it food. In the summer he had to see so he had hay for he cow over the winter.

Today the pressure on people is different than it was then.

But people got exhausted then too, but it was called with other names?

Was he there for his kids? For his wife? For himself?

Is there a perfect system? With all harmed people in the world what is the less imperfect system? So most people can survive, and live decently.

And why are some people weak? Were they born this way? Do we have to take care of them? Or not or in what way? Can they founder?

I am on the weak peoples' side...

Addition April 25:
People lining up in South Africa to vote. All haven't been allowed, haven't had the right to vote and some had more votes than other people during history, and it looks as there exist compulsory voting too (you are not free to vote or NOT vote if you don't want to!! You HAVE to vote! Is that freedom or democracy?). How is it in the world today in those respects? My maternal grandmother was 27 when she got the right to vote on the same premises as men. My paternal grandmother was 35 then.

Freedom, autonomy, arrogance, cynicism, xenophobia, societal approval, and needs...

[Slightly edited in the evening and a little February 24, seeking, searching the words]. Quickly some notes thrown down.

On my walk this morning I thought on the notion “freedom”… What is this about? What should it be about?

I also thought on the notion autonomy, and further on arrogance and cynicism.

Miller has written about autonomy, for instance in “The Drama of the Gifted Child” (in my translation from the Swedish edition):

“A patient with ‘antennas’ for the unconscious in the therapist will immediately react on this [the therapist's needs of another, weaker person’s childish dependency on him/her]. He will quickly ‘feel’ autonomous and behave in this way if he notices [on a conscious or unconscious way] that it is important for the therapist getting autonomous patients with a secure behavior quickly. But this ‘autonomy’ ends up in depression [sooner or later], because it isn’t genuine.”

I think she is right. Many (all) patients seeking help are used to filling other persons' (parents', caregivers' and their substitutes') needs. Actually the patient isn't to blame for being stuck in depression. But many patients tend to blame themselves, blaming themselves for being failures, impossible.

Miller also writes about manipulative measures concerning depressive patients, and the vicious circle of contempt showing in too many helpers too...

She also writes,about autonomy (in the same book):

“The difficulties to experience and develop own genuine feelings results in a permanent bond that makes a demarcation [liberation] impossible./…/ …the child hasn’t gotten the opportunity to develop an own security.”

And this is often met with contempt for weakness, not empathy or understanding/enlightenment about the roots to this state. Too often also from so called helpers, such as therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists. And thus the person in question is stuck in shame and becomes even more tied up, even more unfree.

Contempt for weakness and instilling shame.

I also thought about needs, bottomless needs, originating in the child’s unfulfilled early needs. And those needs can never become filled afterwards, but you can acknowledge and recognize them and maybe grieve them and then be capable of filling you adult needs… Instead of the childhood needs. Trying to fill our childhood needs always causes problems, bigger or smaller.

It’s important that you don’t belittle or minimize what happened though, or rather this is even crucial for recovery to occur.

What we see (and have seen through history) are needs (for power and wealth) need that are never fulfilled, expressed in different ways, more or less violent. Persons never getting satisfied. And this is nothing we are born with is my true conviction, but has a reason.

Miller also writes about directing our anger (and other feelings) at scapegoats (symbols, symbolically dealing with early things), something that will never liberate us. Only of we direct those feelings at the true and original causes we will become liberated. Which doesn't say that any of this is easy, unfortunately. So if we could prevent this...

Yes, it’s this with xenophobia too… See for instance the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus and fascism (“Hitler and Hatred”), and about societal approval… See earlier posting on Pincus on terrorism. And also see earlier postings under the label bigotry.

Psychology and society…

Ole Jacob Madsen.

[Updated February 4 in the end of this blogposting]. This posting was quickly translated (from Norwegian) and written in the middle of a lot of work.

“Psychologists are lacking self-knowledge (self-understanding). The psychology profession is lacking capacity to see its own political impact and has overseen the growth of the therapeutic culture.”

The author of the article linked above (Ole Jacob Madsen, psychologist coming with the book "Psychology and Society" fall 2009) writes that the last years the psychologists in Norway (as a group or union) have been operating with the strategic goal of getting the psychology out to people, at the same time as the profession shall become stronger represented in the society’s development and planning than it has been. A striving to become a central actor in the society and a political pusher, with a broad perspective.

But “The Era of Psychology” and “the Therapy Society” are sociological ideas that aren’t new in intellectual milieus. No, nothing of this is actually new though he tries to point out, in my understanding and interpretation (of a text in Norwegian, quite academic too).

The analysis of the psychology’s increased influence in the Western Culture contains interesting questions. Has human development with focus on treatment of illness only been amicable (good)?

Is psychology the answer to individuals’ problems, or is the illness a symptom on a greater cultural crisis?

The British professor in sociology Nikolas Rose has shown how psychological norms, values, pictures of ideas (or conceptions) and techniques have formed how different societal authorities are thinking about peoples’ illnesses, normality and pathology. The psychology becomes active in most areas of modern life with developing independent fields of subjectivity in accordance with the society’s needs for regulating this independence.

Yes, the profession has too often run the power’s errands, the power’s needs for steering people!!! (And once again: the most defended tend to lead!)

But yes, this science HAS contributed with good things too, and the author points to those too.

For instance see the well-known study “the Hawthorne experiment” in USA (the Hawthorne effect); the feeling of being seen on a workplace increases the productivity. This was the start point for the Human Relation movement.

The critical voices against the psychology’s increased influence, especially in the US, and later in the rest of the Western world, is focusing on that the clinical psychology preferably presents individual solutions to problems that rather are social (societal?) and political. Thus there are good arguments to understand the psychology in an ideological perspective, such as the real ground why people are suffering.

Yes, psychology can really become misused, by the power!? As all science can become!?

The author writes that the subject the nineteenth decade gave birth to and its neoliberal project has by many become described as (the creation of) a corporate-self, forced to administer itself as an achievement. The psychologist in this culture gets a central place, among a lot of new expert profession groups, helping people to self steering.

Yes, you have only yourself to blame!? You have to pull yourself together, get a grip on yourself!

From 1940 and forward the psychology profession and the number of psychological illnesses grew (and is still growing?). Individual critics maintain that many (new) illnesses are strangely sharp, followed by a wish about power on the one hand and by a narrow view or thoughtlessness on the other hand.

However, this sort of criticism isn’t gaining the relational of the state of things between psychology and society the author thinks, because psychological language answers to needs in the society.

The psychology’s legality became increased during the decade after WWII in the US, because federal authorities need an allied to defend its presence in the inmates’ life and living. Earlier one stimulated the lust of reading in the inmates with scaring with the evil; the way to damnation went through the Bible. But the institutionalized religion lost its power with time, and became exchanged or compensated by typical therapeutic motives where the danger now is becoming bullied or having bad self confidence, becoming tools against illiteracy. (???? I didn’t really catch this! Need to read this again and more thoroughly?)

Comparative historical studies are though at risk of becoming reactionary idealizations of past times, but there are interesting religion-sociology applications. They point to the unsound that existential guilt no longer is placed outside the human being. Or that a self-disciplined system like the therapeutic can represent the authoritarian patriarchy, because it is only rights and not duties that are promoted, something that creates an imbalance between the individual’s and the society’s needs.

Of course psychotherapy can be healing for individuals, but from a system perspective you can speculate if the well-meant help just as well is at risk of becoming a part of easy won political solutions, where the individual becomes garbage can for the society’s unsolved conflicts.

What does the profession itself say? Relatively little. The answer to the society’s conflicts is always more psychology. The psychology’s self-understanding as underrepresented in the society is standing in contrast to the general knowledge and the profession’s description of the therapeutic culture.

The author writes about the (psychology) profession’s lack of history (lack of awareness about its history rather?), when exposed to critical reflection, but with a shameless eager to offer its services.

If the psychology’s character in itself isn’t worthy critics, then its limited apparatus for understanding itself is alarming.

Addition February 4: As a thought it was a leader today with the title ”More Wallraffing in the Psychiatric care” where you can read in the beginning something in this style:

”Why does it never seem to become any order in the psychiatry? For centuries the mental hospitals were often shocking fields of experiments for different [pseudo] scientific and therapeutic ideas, from swings to cold baths, over lobotomy to a blind faith (superstition) on different miraculous (wonder making) psychoactive drugs.”

Read about Günter Wallraff here. There you can read:

"His investigative methods have led to the creation of the Swedish verb 'wallraffa', meaning 'to expose misconduct from the inside by assuming a role', which has been officially included in word list of the Swedish Academy."

New Alice Miller article...

when one is six years...

"At the beginning of our lives we were, as very small children, totally dependent on our parents. And we believed, we HAD TO believe, that we were loved by them. Even when we were abused we couldn't realize this. Then, after 4 years, we grew up and couldn't avoid suffering from being rejected, hated and treated cruelly.

But as dependent children we still could not afford to FEEL this suffering, we were too small to deal with these feelings, thus we had to repress our rage, indignation, and our deep disappointment into our bodies.

When we become adult, these repressed feelings stemming from the cruel treatment of our parents may come to the surface, but they are still connected with the small child's fear of being punished for every sign of rebellion."

My quick translation to Swedish:

“Som mycket små barn i livets början var vi totalt beroende av våra föräldrar. Och vi trodde, vi MÅSTE tro, att vi var älskade av dem. Till och med när vi blev utsatta för övergrepp [av diverse slag: fysiska, emotionella/känslomässiga/verbala, sexuella av olika sorter] kunde vi inte inse detta. Sedan, efter 4 års ålder, växte vi upp och kunde inte undvika att lida av att bli förkastade/bortstötta, hatade och grymt behandlade [men även det lilla barnet kände allt detta, kanske ÄNNU starkare än individer senare i livet].

Men som beroende barn kunde vi fortfarande inte tillåta oss att KÄNNA detta lidande, vi var för små för att handskas med dessa känslor, sålunda var vi tvungna att tränga bort vårt raseri, indignation och djupa besvikelse i våra kroppar.

När vi blev vuxna kan dessa bortträngda känslor, som härstammar från barndomen komma upp till ytan, men de är fortfarande knutna till det lilla barnets rädsla för att bli straffat för varje tecken på uppror.”

See the sequel here. And also read about that "Verbal abuse hurts as much as sexual abuse."

More voices in Sweden about the current situation in the world...

Martin Luther.

Suddenly the word capitalism was on all our lips. Economy reporters started to pose questions about the capitalism. It’s no longer seen as only an economical system, but also as an ideology.

It was long since. The entire posting written with my amateur English...

The market mantra about the necessary deregulations maybe can be changed against a more moderate, sensible talk about a common responsibility and the policy’s power nationally and internationally at last?

Here is another one reacting at our finance minister (from the moderate party), mentioning his attack against greedy people on Wall Street. A minister advising the need for regulations, not least international regulations. But it would be "becoming" if he made a public confession the writer thinks. The moderate party is namely the party that has recommended market liberalization the strongest and put every trial to creating a balance between politics and market to scorn.

However, the writer appreciates his criticism of the neoliberalism’s ravaging.

Even the social democracy needs self-examination. Hopefully the leader of that party Mona Sahlin and their spokesman for economical things Thomas Östros will be the prime mover of endurable alternatives to the quarter-of-a-year-capitalism.

Avariciousness has always been the capitalism’s intrinsic motor. Already Martin Luther realized this when the city of Wittenberg was stricken by failure of the crop or bad harvest 1537. The prices on grains shoot up. And the grain dealers started to store grain waiting for the prices to grow even more!! In this way the capitalists could gain even more money. Consequently this became a catastrophe for the wage-workers of Wittenberg. They were forced to borrow money to be able to buy their bread (as we say). The banks raised their rates. The poor was starving.

Luther wrote a grinding (??) to the priests to preach against the usury. This was an unprecedented attack on that time’s bank and trade capitalism.

“An usurer is murdering actively. Because it isn’t only that he lets helping the hungry alone. He even pulls (jerks?) the crumbs from the mouth of the starving. /…/ The usurer doesn’t care if the whole world dies if he only gets his money.”

Luther wrote.

The usurer was considered abusing his fellow human beings situation of troubles and (justified) needs. Power abuse. Luther started out from solidarity with the ones that were poor and had least power.

“Who are stricken in first hand when you are practicing usury? Isn’t it the poor whom in the whole is stricken first and foremost?”

Luther continued with his criticism.

Through the economism culture we have all become speculators on the stock exchanges/market (for instance we place our pensions in stocks or shares nowadays!!!). We are raised thinking on biggest possible profit for our own sake. We need to re-establish the sense for a “we”, where we in fact are dependent on each other and therefore need to look so all have it good. From mutuality the solidarity grows.

Oh NO, we are not dependent on anyone!! Observe the irony. Because maybe we are both dependent and independent? We need other people at the same time as we can manage a lot of things on our own (if we aren't totally handicapped). A child who has been truly respected develop a sound (sounder than many of us) relation to dependency/independency? Isn't afraid of being dependent in certain situations, and is independent in other. A sound balance beween dependency and independency?

The capitalism is threatening the right and righteousness.

I can’t help thinking: We teach our children to think of other people and share and at the same time they are learned a contradicting message: to think of themselves. Miller writes about contradictions and confusions… And once again the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes about the effects of children being taught to share at a too early age (something she thinks almost all of us are).

I think Martin Luther was beaten as a child by the way... What did that mean to him and to many other people?

Crying...

sleeping baby, and not sleeping in a parent's arms...

[Updated in the end January 28]. I thought further on the former topic when I did other things and wondered if Ingeborg Bosh hadn't written anything about perfectionism. I didn't find anything on that though (skimmed the book very swiftly), but I found something else, instead; about crying (at page 132 in her book "Rediscovering The True Self"). And about honoring all feelings and letting our children express their feelings. She writes that:

"There are no exceptions. When they feel pain, are frightened, confused etc. it is important to listen to them, let them fully express their feelings, and then, see if a solution can be found together, if the child so desires. Be sure to allow enough time so that the feeling can be fully experienced by the child and not stopped before it has run its natural course. Never try to make children stop crying! It's the crying in the presence of an empathic adult that has a healing effect on children."

And then it stands about crying:

"Crying is the only way a newborn or small baby has to communicate its distress and it should be taken very seriously. It is as terrible for he baby as it sounds. Often young parents will say: 'Well we pick her up when she cries, but not immediately. We let her cry for 15 minutes or so. Sometimes a little longer. We can't react to her every whim.'

Harvard researchers Commons and Miller show how devastating this treatment can be to the young child. Alvin Powell write about this research: 'Instead of letting infants cry, American parents should keep their babies close, console them when they cry, and bring them to bed with them, where they'll feel safe, according to Michael Simmons and Patrice Miller, researchers at the Medical School's Department of Psychiatry.

The pair examined child-rearing practices here and in other cultures and say that the widespread American practice of putting babies in separate beds - even separate rooms - and not responding to their cries may lead to more incidents of post-traumatic stress and panic disorders among American adults.

The early stress due to separation causes changes in infant brains that make future adults more susceptible to stress in their lives. Parents should recognize that having babies cry unnecessarily harms the baby permanently (italics by author). It changes the nervous system so they're sensitive to future trauma."

I came to think of the small baby, the sixth, to a mother that was near 40... The mother had had five children earlier, was "experienced", and felt she needed her sleep?? So the baby was put in another room, though next to the parent's (but not with doors between the two rooms). At bedtime the small baby started to cry. Now she was going to be left alone? The house had become silent. No noise of people - no signs of any kind of living human beings near!? Alone in the world? So the baby started to cry.

The mom picked her up and sat in a rocking-chair in the hall outside the two bedrooms. The other two bedrooms (for the four oldest) lay one stair up together with a TV-room in a hall between the bedrooms.

The fifth child in line slept in her own bed in the parents' bedroom.

The mom put on some music on the recorder, a special song which was popular that time, and sat there with the baby which calmed down and stopped crying.

The other children got calm too?? Because it was distressing for them too to hear the small baby cry?? And it disturbed their sleep too?? And they should get up early and go to school too... And the baby was put back in her bed in her own room. And fell asleep of pure tiredness?

This went on for the baby's first three months I think...

Later this child grew up to an adult with high demands, fairly easily stressed, yes, with anxiety and perfectionist problems... Problems with her stomach, often ache in it...

I know her... And met her yesterday, newly operated... What help has she got to process this, or even to decipher this?? With the reservation I may be wrong in my thoughts, that I am rewriting a history? But am I? I was there. I was 12, 5 years then...Thus not so small... I get so angry, because this woman has been in therapy a lot for her self-awareness sake (gestalt-therapy). And, yes, a period she got panic-attacks...

What did the older children experience in this way?? Yes, they were all separated from the mother directly after birth, taken away to be bathed. The second in line cried so much after his birth that the mother still remembers it. And the fist child was blue at birth... And when she was bathed she was thrown down to her mom with the words:

"I have never seen such a blue baby!!"

This baby had an enormous fontanel. Was it something wrong with her?? Was she hurt, damaged? Did she have"water in the brain" (Hydrocephalus)?? It showed she wasn't. She was not unintelligent, maybe the opposite... The next child, a boy also had, as the fourth, also a boy. But b then the mom (very anxious mom) this was nothing to be afraid of.

---

About Michael Commons' and Patrice Miller's (I am not 100 % sure I ave linked the right persons) findings see the article "Cry it out". And "Children Need Touch and Attention" here and here. The same text though an all these sites??

In the second text it stands for instance:

"The pair say that American childrearing practices are influenced by fears that children will grow up dependent. But they say that parents are on the wrong track: physical contact and reassurance will make children more secure and better able to form adult relationships when they finally head out on their own.

'We've stressed independence so much that it's having some very negative side effects,' Miller said."

And in the second (my italics below):

The way we are brought up colors our entire society, Commons and Miller say. Americans in general don't like to be touched and pride themselves on independence to the point of isolation, even when undergoing a difficult or stressful time. /…/

‘There are ways to grow up and be independent without putting babies through this trauma,’ Commons said. ‘My advice is to keep the kids secure so they can grow up and take some risks.’

Besides fears of dependence, other factors have helped form our childrearing practices, including fears that children would interfere with sex if they shared their parents' room [but if parents bond better and ore with their children they are better protected from harming them in any way?? Including sexually abusing them??] and doctors' concerns that a baby would be injured by a parent rolling on it if it shared their bed, the pair said. The nation's growing wealth has helped the trend toward separation by giving families the means to buy larger homes with separate rooms for children.

The result, Commons and Miller said, is a nation that doesn't like caring for its own children, a violent nation marked by loose, nonphysical relationships.

‘I think there's a real resistance in this culture to caring for children,’ Commons said. ‘Punishment and abandonment has never been a good way to get warm, caring, independent people.’”

But I don’t think only Americans have those childrearing practices. And this way of handling a child is a fear of spoiling the child, and what might then happen!??

Addition January 28:
But see earlier postings about what Bosch writes about respecting physical integrity (and touch) and about emotional needs (and their essential role for survival) from last summer. None of these postings are edited... I have only skimmed them now... I let them stand there as they are, at least for now... As spontaneously written as they were then.

Also see earlier posting on Kirkengen and boundary violations.

"I feel so angry, sad, and disappointed!!"

"But you shouldn't! Look... Maybe it can be so or so..."

Told what to think and feel is abuse according to Pia Melody. And when I hear such things I don't get less angry, but more!! :-) As if it is forbidden to feel, and feel strongly!!?? And forbidden to feel negative, difficult feelings!! I think people view me as grounded in the earth and calm?? But there are a lot of feelings under the surface... Maybe they also see that!??

Before I was somewhere round 33 years I didn't want to be seen, so I dressed fairly "gray" struck me again this morning...

My youngest brother skied MarciaLonga in Italy yesterday, around 70 km on around 4 hours... I haven't spoken with him though. He turns 49 years in June.

Our relative physical "strength" seen to that we are short, small people does it come of an inner fury I have thought sometimes... And what is this fury about?

Some expressions struck me when I took a shower now: "corrective measures", by telling another person what to feel, think, how to react... Strong feelings, emotions and expression are dangerous - and threatening?? Yes, hasn't Miller written about artistic expressions as socially accepted expressions (though with limits they too)? Even highly regarded! People with artistic talents are often enormously admired?? But does anyone want to know what's behind these expressions? If there is something behind them?

Yes, that about socially accepted expressions and behaviors again... And how shamy it is if a person is imperfect sometimes...

Helpers of all kinds, as therapists, psychologists and other sorts of "healers" (and gurus??) also believe and rely on corrective measures (only)??? That people just need to change, be relearned, need better models and that is the solution?? Maybe it is or feels so? But what has actually changed? If they just start behaving functional instead of dysfunctional, then they are cured?? Or?

What are the healer, therapist doing actually??

Yes, I use to train relaxation with programs (on the mp3-player in my cellphone for instance) and such things... But there is a but... This is only about trying to survive the best way possible... Minute by minute... But what and how much does it actually resolve?

And all those corrective measures, as retraining and relearning what message do they pass forward?? Very ironically... That here is something wrong with you!!?? And the healer, helper doesn't want to know more!!?? Does he/she?? There must really be something dangerous here?? Something that is forbidden to mention and touch upon!!?? Things that already are filled with fear... The healer signals (if not consciously so unconsciously) that this is really something dangerous?? What does this mean? For the one seeking help...

Jenson (and maybe also Bosch) writes about what the idea about "safe places" can imply. As if they are needed!!?? What scary things are then below?

In a hurry to work, making food, planning the day, taking a walk... Hmmm, how was it now with stressing??

Can anyone forbid one to feel neither this nor that actually? Less if you are grown up?! And isn't it as Miller says: it's not the feelings and emotions that are dangerous in themselves, but the actions they can lead to?? So feelings can't harm as long as you don't act them out (destructively or self-destructively), as long as you just feel them, which can be difficult enough...

"But you don't have to..."

As if one has to be protected against feelings (and pain)? As if one is so weak, maybe too sensitive for such things!? Even over-sensitive?? ("Yes think if I am???"). Yes, Miller writes about a woman in upper middle-age, who was protected by her husband... She suffered from severe depressions, but he thought she wouldn't survive processing her childhood experiences. But it showed to be different... To his astonishment (what I referred to in the posting about that love isn't the only thing needed for healing, despite this woman was surrounded by a loving family: husband and daughter, this didn't heal or made her less depressed). But love probably contributes in a positive way!! Makes it easier to face eventual truths!? And I don't believe at all in any truth-telling or other brutal ways of bringing people to enlightenment...

And, yes, does a disconsolate crying baby/child make us feel insecure and worried?