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.

Children’s and adults’ needs…

the first snow a couple of weeks ago.

Thought further after the former posting about raising methods...

What are the child’s needs? What needs does it have to get filled to develop as optimally as possible? That is to develop to a living human being. A human being capable of forming a life he/she wants that isn’t destructive or self-destructive.

Yes, a child needs more than food and shelter. It needs emotional safety, reassurances of different kinds… And emotional needs are essential for survival!

The needs that didn’t get filled early in life will cause bigger or smaller problems later in life. Either for the individual itself and/or for other people, the extent or scale of problems the individual causes depends on the power he/she gets. Many exercise power on a micro level and some on a macro (addition November 17: the latter on a micro too, because usually those people also have families).

And some are so paralyzed so they direct everything towards themselves in different ways.

But it is possible to recover and heal to an extent so you can live a deeply meaningful life – I am sure. However, a big problem is the societal denial; the lack of talk about those things, I would assert or maintain! And the denial not least about how common those things probably are to different degrees! AND HOW HARMFUL they in fact are! WHAT they are actually causing. But if you have been a living dead more or less your whole life, from earliest childhood, you don’t know what you are missing or lacking either. And you don’t know what you are forwarding either! And maybe you don't want to know what you are forwarding...

If more people started to admit to those things I think this would be the only help many people would need! But not the only help for all. But it would be a help for the most harmed too. And a few are so harmed so you maybe can’t help them at all? As some of the worst serial killers and alike?

And what would real, adult needs be? How many of us really know?

And once again it also struck me that people have to be allowed to express themselves with the language and words they have: that not only the "educated" with a perfect grammar are allowed to write or express themselves!!! Is this actually contempt for weakness, i.e, contempt for the small child you once were, who didn't have the words yet of natural reasons, but needed to express feelings and emotions in some way. And in what ways?

Some of us need to search for the words really when we try to write about and investigate those things... For some (or maybe many) it's difficult to put these things in words!?? But it can be very important we try nevertheless. And why do we care about people looking down on our struggles and our imperfectness??? To be honest...

Unconditional love…

Things that have struck me the last days of some reason: instilling shame is used as a method raising children. A very effective method. Shame that you feel and react as you do – and that you have needs (that you are needy and childish for instance).

But those needs were much justified, maybe later on perverted, and thus it became more and more difficult to understand their origins. And the needs became more and more "complex."

This method covers what actually happened, covered not only for the ones involved but also for the environment. Making all more or less incapable of seeing what happened/what is happening even.

Later used for the same purpose grown ups between, more or less consciously or deliberately.

Mirrored how? As someone disgusting, ugly, not really lovable…

Unless…

Unless what?

Unless you aren’t perfect; as a human being, in your achievements, how you look (if you are a beauty or not. Only beauties counts!). So the possibility you will be good enough doesn’t even exist. And thus also the possibility of being loved almost doesn’t exist! False hope to get what you miss, if only... Getting needs met that should have become met then, and can't be met afterwards. Continuing to give us problems later, especially in circumstances that are important for us, in relations that are (most) important for us.

A mother and father incapable of loving unconditionally. The child feeling that it isn’t good as it is. A feeling that follows the individual up in grown up age.

A colleague joked with me on a party yesterday evening. He and three more colleagues had entertained with playing on service flats for elderly people. One of those colleagues is retired since five or more years. They had been joking about what demands to have on service flats for their old ages; if the service flats had ranges of culture, for instance a good piano or Grand piano.

“Come and entertain us with your students!!”

my retired colleague ended a lengthy exposition about service flats and their particular entertainment on one here in town.

“Yes, you have to!”

a male colleague sitting next to me said to me.

“But we will land at that service flat at the same time!”

I replied, not really understanding what he meant.

“As we are (exactly) in the same age!!!”

I added, because he looked a little bewildered. As a question mark almost.

“Yes, I am born…”

I said the year (the same as this man, I think, or the year after).

“I thought you were younger [than him? Than I look? With a sigh. I don't have high opinions about how I look...]…”

He replied. He must have thought not so few years!!??

There’s really a lot working here… Not only because of this event, but because of a lot else…

Things I try to put words on…

But it was/is only the child that needs that unconditional love. I think Miller is right there. Grown up doesn’t need it, or shouldn’t need it, if the development had been sound (or what the appropriate word would be?).

But many of us didn’t get that upbringing, so many of us have problems with a lot of things not least when we get in love… Thinking loudly again.

Feelings an adult wouldn’t feel if a sound maturity had occurred...

Read something that really triggered feelings and thoughts...

The American therapist Jean Jenson writes that certain feelings/emotions – like abandonment, being expelled, insufficiency/inadequacy, deep dependency, that one is “mean” or “bad” or feels shame – are experienced now, in our adult life, ONLY because we couldn’t feel these emotions as children. These are feelings adults wouldn’t have if a sound maturity had occurred.

Independently of the actual circumstances, these are always OLD feelings, when they are experienced in adult age.

I think she is right, but this doesn’t mean we can’t or don’t have to understand the adult feeling/having these emotions!!!

Women and aggressiveness, being subjects and being objects…

When I searched on the song in the former posting “Why are birds having so weak voices?” ("Varför har tjejer så svaga röster?") I found this text (I recommend it for those understanding Swedish) where it for instance stood about women and aggressiveness, women being a subject - and being an object (but I guess men can be both subjects and objects too, but maybe in other ways??):

Kvinnor och aggressivitet

Women and aggressiveness.

Som kvinna är du kanske uppfostrad att gråta bort din berättigade vrede och inta en vädjande eller förförisk pose för att nå dina syften. Denna stukade hållning gör dig svag och utlämnad till den andres goda vilja även om den ger dig framgång ibland.

As woman you are maybe raised crying your justified anger away and raised in taking up an appealing or seducing pose to reach your aims. This browbeaten attitude makes you weak and left out to the other person's good will even if it gives you success sometimes [to what prize? You aren't allowed to be too strong and not too weak either? You aren't allowed to be too much, or too little of this and that, or anything!?? You aren't allowed to be exactly as you 'are'? What our true selves now are?].

Kanske samlar du på dig så mycket vrede att du oartikulerat tappar kontrollen, eventuellt i samband med alkoholförtäring. Du blir då inte tagen på allvar utan snarast 'förlåten' och ditt budskap trollas bort.

Maybe you accumulate so much anger that you inarticulately loose the control, perhaps in connection with alcohol use. Then you won't be taken seriously but instead 'forgiven' and your message is conjured away.

Förnekar du din vrede är det sannolikt att den sipprar fram som ironier, pikar, gnat eller provokationer och du riskerar att bli sedd som obehaglig och elak människa som lockar fram det sämsta hos sina närstående, även barnen. Blir någon med outvecklad självkontroll utsatt kan följderna bli katastrofala för er båda.

This paragraph is about denying your anger and the consequences of that... If you are denying your anger it can ooze out in ironies, gibes, nagging or provocations and you are at risk being seen as an uncomfortable and mean human being which entice the worse sides in the people near you, even in the children. If a person with an undeveloped self-control becomes the target for this the consequences can become disastrous for you both.

Om du sätter dig i sinnet att börja hävda dig mer direkt och rakryggat hamnar du i svårigheter som känns ovana. Kanske kan du hitta stöd hos någon klok medmänniska!

If you have decided to raise your voice and stand for what you think, want, feel, need you can land in troubles which can feel difficult to handle. Maybe you can get support from a wise human fellow being then!

Det stöd som du har tillgängligt från andra räcker kanske inte om ditt självförtroende är stukat. Då kan det vara idé att söka psykoterapi för att komma vidare. Depressioner är dubbelt så vanliga hos kvinnor som hos män!

The support you have access to maybe isn't sufficient or enough. Then it can be a good idea [I have doubts about a lot of help] to seek therapy to be able to move further. Depressions are twice as common in women as in men!

Att vara subjekt

To be a subject.

Varför har tjejer så svaga röster...

Why do birds (women) have so weak voices?

Att vara subjekt innebär att vara inlemmad i kulturen och samtidigt vara huvudperson i sitt eget liv. Många fler kvinnor än män hittar sin plats i samhället som bifigurer till sina partners, föräldrar, chefer eller barn.

Being a subject means being incorporated in the culture and at the same time being the leading figure in ones own life. Many more women than men find their place in society as accessory figures to their partners, parents, bosses and children.

Du lever då för någon annan och underkastar dig en annans tänkande, behov och vilja (oftast en mans men det kan också vara en kvinnas). Samtidigt avstår du från att tänka och känna själv eller åtminstone från att uttala din sanning högt, när det gäller. Detta innebär att du offrar en central del av din egen identitet. Undergivenhet innebär nästan alltid en (omedveten) fientlighet.

You live for someone else and subject yourself to another person's thinking, needs and will (often a man's, but it can also be a woman's). At the same time you give up thinking and feeling yourself or at least from expressing your truth loudly, when it is really important. This means that you sacrifice a central part of your own identity. Submissiveness is almost always an (unconscious) hostility.

Att etablera dig som subjekt sker inte utan risker. Det kräver självförtroende och självkännedom. Och skapar självkänsla!

Establishing yourself as subject doesn't occur without risks. This demands self-confidence and self-knowledge. And it creates self-esteem.

Slavuppror möts alltid av motstånd - de forna härskarna och härskarinnorna fruktar att själva bli slavar och kan svårligen se jämlikhetens möjligheter. Det gäller att tänka klart och strategiskt.

The slaves rebellion is always met with resistance - the former rulers fear becoming slaves themselves and can hardly see the possibilities in equality. It's a question of thinking clearly and strategically [but not manipulatively!!??].

Att vara objekt

Being an object.

När du kämpar för att vara subjekt kommer detta ofta i konflikt med din önskan att vara objekt, önskan att bli begärd.

When you are struggling being a subject this will be in conflict with your desire of being an object, the desire of being desired for.

Du kanske frestas tro att denna längtan måste utrotas ur din personlighet. Detta vore en ny stympning, knappast värd sitt pris. Ett av dina begär är väl faktiskt att vara begärd? Den svåra konsten är att behålla ditt centrum.

Maybe you are tempted into believing that this longing has to be eradicated from your personality. This would be a new maiming, hardly worth its prize. Isn’t one of your desires to be desired? The hard task is to keep your center.

Helga – part 3…

Helga replied that she had needed those six months to get more clarity. Now she thought she had come so far so she would have written to Michelle on her own, without being reminded.

“When you went to Peru it was as if you had died. You probably think this sounds strange, because of course you were reachable, I could have written. I could have replied to your loving letters to keep our contact going. But I couldn’t.

Even if I wrote kind letters to you I experienced myself as cut off from you for ever. For a long time I couldn’t understand this.

It was not until we met half a year ago I found the key which had been missing during the whole long therapy.

First it was Brigit who found it strange that I hardly knew anything about you. She wanted to know how it was when you left ten years ago. I didn’t remember. This surprised me. She said:

“How strange! Your best friend goes so far away, and you have no memory of your farewell? Did you feel abandoned then, after her departure?”

“No,”

I answered,

“I didn’t feel anything at all.”

I said these words calmly, surprised myself over my equanimity. But I discovered that I in some sense felt defiant, as a hurt child who isn’t possible to speak to.

"How come?"

I wondered.

"Brigit is kind; there is no need to react like that to her. She wants to help me. There is no reason for me to reject her."

At this simple truth my defiance broke down, I don’t know why it came then, but I started to cry. Now I suddenly felt the pain in being abandoned (the pain I had refused to feel and had held from myself when you left and with it memories of the whole event). At last I understood how motivated this was.”

When Helga was four her father had died. She was left with her mother, whom had a lot of problems herself and was incapable of giving Helga any security. A mother who strictly controlled her and at the same time clung firmly to her, because she needed someone and there was noone else but Helga. Helga had to take care of and fill her mothers needs and think of her.

It was impossible for Helga to feel or show her sorrow and despair over the loss of her father in her mother’s presence. Her mother first and foremost expected self-restraint from Helga and a good manner, but no expressions of emotions (but, once again, self-control!!!), not least as she was jealous to Helga’s love to her father.

Helga had to cleverly accept that her father was gone, i.e. silently and without emotions “accept” it.

Helga experienced Michelle’s departure in the same way. She couldn’t cry, as if somebody had forbidden it, and in a way she metaphorically "buried" Michelle.

Michelle’s mother had used all opportunities to teach Helga good manners. And maybe Helga thought that if she behaved well her father would return? Helga got used to not posing questions, this was forbidden (she had to figure things out on her own? And as good as she could on her own?).

After Michelle had left Helga met a man, but when she got pregnant this man left her, because he didn’t want the child. Helga had to handle all this. But her inner tension showed in difficulties to sleep. She started to take sleeping pills, and had to take stronger and stronger dozes till she realized that she had to do something about it. And thus the therapy.

But this therapy left her in the same childish state of helplessness and dependency, and the powerless anger which this led to, and she didn’t know how she should be able to change the state of affairs. She didn’t succeed in getting any use at all of all her crying. This state lasted for several years. And it was only the therapist who (greatly) benefited on this.

This man profited on Helga’s constant crying and idealized transference, instead of settling it, and Helga couldn’t break the vicious circle. She had got stuck at the same level as the little girl, who can’t understand what is done to her.

The therapist systematically depreciated all people whom stood her near, even Michelle and her co-workers and cousins, so at last she had noone else but him.

Helga thought the therapist only had figured out how he could intensify people’s childish needs, which aren’t possible to fulfill any more, till they were unendurable, to mitigate them with promises about cure. To reach this cure people are prepared to let themselves be exploited in different ways; economically, emotionally and sexually.

But this affair was so good that he probably saw no need to help her even if he had had those prerequisites, which he hadn’t.

The sexual violation often plays a special role. The women’s humiliation and the alleged intimacy shall prevent them from seeing the one through who is using them.

Helga thought that the sexual relation had given her an illusion of love, and as her therapist stayed alive she could tolerate his infidelity. What she had feared the most was her father’s death, because this had meant that she was handed out to her mother’s universally prevailing power.

But what she to whatever prize had tried to avoid occurred. She had become limitlessly dependent on a person who made her believe that he wanted and could help her, and who without hesitation or doubts wanted to drive her into a psychosis, only for to cover up what he himself had done.

Already with her mother Helga had experienced being talked away from her observations and thus made deeply insecure on her senses; on what she saw, heard, sensed (see Mellody on excessive control of reality or överdriven kontroll av verkligheten). She was so used to this that she had no chance of becoming aware that her therapist did the same thing to her once again. But much more consciously and skilfully.

It wasn’t until she met Brigit that she understood why she had let herself be blended for such a long time by this human being. And been able doing this with Brigit’s help in only six months.

He even succeeded in making her believe in his healing powers by showing her written “proofs”; letters from “healed”, which much later showed to be falsified. Emotionally she had got stuck as the small daughter in this relation, a daughter bravely enduring with her mother in the hope that she should “deserve” her father's return.

She had met with a man who had specialized in exploiting his patients’ special distresses as much as possible for his own aims

What gave him so much power over Helga were her early denied sorrow and the defence against the helplessness she had felt then. He now awoke this in the grown up woman, added fuel to it and exploited it.

When Helga met Michelle again then, six months ago, she wasn’t capable of telling her all she now had told her. It was the return of Michelle that helped her getting access to her history.

Childhood and adult needs...

Childhood and adult needs what's the difference?

Trying to fill childhood needs as grown ups always cause problems, bigger or smaller. And which are our adult needs actually?

Wondering... Perhaps I will come back to this later.

The video is a tip from a friend...

Won't Get Fooled Again...

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that' all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Gamla omötta behov/old unmet needs...

[Updated February 5: Illustrating this posting with trying to paste a slide-show into it. With the first photos I eagerly took with a new cellphone camera 1, 5 year ago, fascinated by all the possibilities with the technique. Almost my first trials as photographer actually. From the town where I live.]

Ingeborg Bosch skriver i sin bok "Rediscovering the True Self" på sidan 271 om "Old unmet needs":

"As children we all had needs that were not met by our care-givers. Usually these unmet needs are of a non-physical nature (warmth, safety, trust, support, etc.). There are also unmet needs of a physical nature (sexual integrity and bodily safety). It is these unmet needs that make it necessary for children to hide the truth about their childhoods from themselves. The truth being that their needs are not being met and will not ever be met."

Vilket översatt blir (min översättning, utan ordbok, men jag får nog lov att hämta den för det fortsatta bloggandet här!!):

"Som barn hade vi alla behov som inte blev mötta av våra vårdnadsgivare. Vanligtvis är dessa omötta behov av en ickefysisk natur (värme, säkerhet/trygghet, tillit/förtroende, stöd osv.). Det finns också omötta behov av en fysisk natur (sexuell integritet och kroppslig trygghet/säkerhet). Det är dessa omötta behov som gör det nödvändigt för barn att dölja sanningen om sin barndom för sig själva. Sanningen som är att deras behov inte är mötta och aldrig kommer att bli mötta."

Och detta är för smärtsamt för ett barn att ta in, om det inte får hjälp att göra detta av en medkännande vuxen, som inser att barnet behöver få dessa behov fyllda, att de är naturliga och inte sjukliga, inte tecken på svaghet eller något sådant. Se Miller till exempel i "Det självutplånande barnet i hela kapitlet "Föraktets onda cirkel"!

Jag tror att de som ser starka ut har fått dessa behov fyllda eller haft ett medkännande, upplyst vittne eller så har den senare vuxen helt förnekat dessa saker och är så förhärdad och tjockhudad att inget ser ut att bita på denne/denna.

Jean Jenson skriver också om behov på sidorna 148-149 i sin bok "Att återerövra sitt liv".
Om vad hon anser skulle vara känslor som vuxna skulle uppleva under normala förhållanden om de inte vore påverkade av obearbetad barndomssmärta (saker som kan triggas igång av diverse symboler i vuxenlivet, även sådant som inte handlar om stora kriser i vuxenlivet, utan kanske bara av en doft, ett ljud, en film eller dylikt). Här hennes uppräkning över vad hon anser vara vuxenkänslor:

"Obehagliga:
vrede
raseri
sorg
ensamhet
rädsla
hat
olycka

[men också!!] Behagliga [känslor vi kanske inte tillåter oss eller inte kan känna ogrumlade, eller väldigt litet ogrumlade]:
glädje
tillfredsställesle
trygghet
välbefinnande
kärlek
lycka
skuld"

Alla dessa känslor hör normalt också barndomen till, är också barndomskänslor, med tillägget av följande obehagliga känslor (som hon menar indikerar att barndomshändelser triggats igång, dvs. är barndomskänslor):

"övergivenhet
bortstötthet
otillräcklighet
totalt beroende
att man är 'elak', 'dålig' eller känner sig 'fel'
skam."

Hon skriver vidare:

"Så snart vuxna känner sig övergivna, bortstötta, otillräckliga eller totalt beroende är det gamla barndomskänslor de upplever. Det är bara när man är beroende av andra för sitt välbefinnande som man känner sig övergiven. Vuxna kan bli 'lämnade', men när de åtföljande känslorna är desamma som de ett barn skulle känna om det blev lämnat av föräldern - såsom panik, förkrosselse eller förlamande sorg - är det inte förlusten i den aktuella relationen man upplever. På liknande sätt är 'bortstötthet' mer än att man inte är omtyckt, det antyder att det är något fel på oss och kastar en skugga över vårt värde, precis som 'otillräcklighet'. Som vuxna klarar vi av vissa saker men räcker inte till för andra, och vår självkänsla påverkas inte av denna insikt. Att känna sig totalt beroende är en normal del av barndomen, men när man känner på det sättet som vuxen är det en gammal känsla som kommer upp till ytan (som diskuteras i de tabeller som visade skillnaden mellan barnets och den vuxnes verklighet i [tidigare kapitel] kapitel tre). Alla dessa känslor är gamla barndomskänslor som måste ha funnits och trängts bort; den smärta som man inte kände då kommer till ytan nu, förknippad med den aktuella händelsen."

Jenson skriver att om det skett en sund mognad hos barnet skulle den vuxne inte känna känslor som övergivenhet, bortstötthet osv.

Jenson menar att en medvetandeväxling äger rum om något sker i nuet, om vi möter en symbol av något slag. Och det behöver inte vara något dramatiskt alls som utlöser denna medvetandeväxling. Men dessa växlingar, med åtföljande reaktioner kan verkligen krångla till tillvaron för, kanske mer än vi inser eller vill inse...

Men hon påpekar (sidan 59) att:

"Det är viktigt att inse att Joan [en kvinna vars exempel hon använt] inte hade någon kontroll över sina reaktioner på dessa upplevelser [när hon kom ut morgonen för att ta bilen till jobbet hade ett tungt issjok rasat ner från garagets metalltak och Joan blev alldeles förkrossad och började anklaga sig själv. Storgråtande rusade hon in till sin man och talade om vad som hade hänt. Jenson menar att om Joan inte hade det hon hade i ryggsäcken skulle hon ha agerat på ett annat sätt, vuxnare och mer konstruktivt, men nu kunde hon inte detta]. Vår västerländska kultur [och förmodligen inte bara den] vill gärna få oss att tro att det nästan alltid är möjligt för oss att ha kontroll över oss själva, men en av de situationer där vårt psyke inte har situationen helt i sin hand är när medvetandet växlar över till ett tidigare tillstånd där problem inte har lösts eller sörjts. Vi kan inte medvetet hindra denna växling från att inträffa. Men det vi kan göra, och det vi måste lära oss att göra om vi vill uppnå läkning, är att bli på det klara med att den ägt rum."

Barnet använde diverse försvar för att skydda sig mot smärtan och full insikt; falskt hopp (om det bara, då skulle det få sina behov fyllda, bli bättre behandlat osv.), falsk makt genom vrede eller bara irritation (att barnet kände sig stort och starkt och att det hade en makt som det inte hade), falsk makt förnekande av behov (om man förnekar att man har de behov som inte blir fyllda kan det också ge en en, falsk, känsla av makt och kontroll, precis som barnet skyddade sig genom att intala sig att det som hände inte var något viktigt, inget betydde), ursprungligt, eller första, försvar (barnet klandrar sig själv, och detta klander kan vara öppet eller mer dolt; kvinnor tenderar att mer öppet klandra sig själva, anse sig dumma osv., män att dölja detta mer, både för sig själva som för andra, men både män och kvinnor använder detta försvar). Se Miller's artikel "Out of the Prison of Self-Blame" ("Ut ur självklandrets fängelse") och "Depression - Compulsive Self-Deception" ("Depression - tvångsmässig självförnekelse").

De menar också att rädsla kan vara ett sorts försvar, dvs. man undviker det som gör ont, flyr ifrån det... Men man borde försöka våga möta denna istället för att fly den, vilket är vad de hjälper sina klienter med i terapi, genom att inse att faran fanns då, handlar om då och inte om nu... Oerhört svårt dock...

Man använder alla dessa försvar för att förneka de behov man inte fick fyllda, för att undkomma smärtan i sanningen om hur det var och vilka brister ens föräldrar eller vårdnadsgivare hade. Det är dessa försvar som resulterar i all de dysfuntionella beteenden, som man sedan i den mesta terapin ska ändra, till funktionella beteenden...

Men på grund av försvarens natur kan det vara (är!!??) det svårt att riktigt ändras... Vilket kan vara skönt att inse; att det inte beror på fel på mig, utan att detta faktiskt har en orsak. Det vill säga man behöver (eller ska inte ens) klandra sig själv om framgång uteblir eller blir liten, kanske oerhört liten...

De som lyckas bättre har antagligen så litet i sin ryggsäck redan, så de lyckas bättre. Deras exempel är alltså inget "bevis" för att denna metod är oerhört bra eller lyckosam eller den bästa... Se återigen vad Miller skriver i sin bok "Vägar i livet", "Paths of Life" på sidan 161:

"Men håller man okritiskt fast vid de gamla metodernas föregivna ofelbarhet och skyller misslyckanden på patienten, hamnar man oundvikligen i samma farvatten som sekturun, som också lovar fullständig befrielse. Sådana löften producerar bara, som Helgas berättelse visar [Helga blev sexuellt missbrukad i sin terapi, men antagligen kan man bli utsatt för andra sorters övergrepp och brist på respekt från terapeuters och hjälpares sida. Jo, det är ju just detta Kirkengen pekar på vad gäller reviktimisering], självdestruktivt beroende, som står i vägen för den enskildes befrielse."

Jag kan inte låta bli att undra hur många terapeuter som inte för allt smör i Småland vill undvika sanningen!!?? Förmodligen har personliga skäl att göra detta? Och det är väl i och för sig antagligen förståeligt, för de har antagligen en massa smärtsamma upplevelser som de måst tränga bort...

Kan det vara så att de genom sina klienter (och deras lyckanden) vill visa hur duktiga de nu är - och att de nu (kanske) äntligen förtjänar sina föräldrars kärlek, respekt och aktning?? Något de aldrig kommer att lyckas med? För de behov de (eventuellt) försöker fylla skulle ha fyllts då och kan inte fyllas senare.

Jag tror att Miller verkligen har rätt i det hon skriver om terapeuter och omedveten manipulation...

Och om terapeuter är omedvetet rädda för sin egen historia hur kan inte detta påverka dennes/dennas klienter? Undra på om man blir ytterligare rädd? Se Millers artikel "Taking it Personally: Indignation as a Vehicle of Therapy" ("Att ta det personligt: indignation som ett verktyg i terapi").

Fast tyvärr verkar det som om Miller inte riktigt lever upp till det hon lär alla gånger...

De här gamla omötta behoven skapar kanske bara problem i vuxenlivet i olika grad och storlek. Försök att fylla dessa gamla behov (medvetna eller omedvetna) i vuxenlivet orsakar alltid större eller mindre problem!? Somliga problem kanske dock är försumbara?? Och existerar knappt?

Och även om vi nu själva inte orsakar så mycken skada (???) så kan det vara en stor fördel att se så klart som möjligt och ha förmåga att genomskåda manipulation var den än förekommer och i vilken form den än förekommer; i hjälpsituationer (att vi kan hjälpa någon att se saker eller hjälpa oss själva att se saker), i politik på alla nivåer...

Konrad Stettbacher (vilken Miller tagit avstånd ifrån) skriver i sin bok "Om lidandet ska ha en mening" ("Making Sense of Suffering: Confrontation With Your Own Past") om att bevara livets väktare i barn, dvs. att vi behandlar dem så att de inte måste tränga bort saker och döva sin förmåga till kännande - och medkännande.

Se också vad Miller skriver om primalterapi "Concerning Primal Self-Therapy". Och se Sam Turton om Millers syn på primal terapi, efter epostande med henne, i "Alice Miller & Primal Therapy: a Summary".

Se tidigare postningar om "evading childhood reality in psychotherapy".

I "Introduction to Past Integration Therapy" står det:

"Past Reality Integration® therapy is based on that we, as adults, often perceive the world through the defence mechanisms that we have developed as children. These defence mechanisms see to it that we do not have to feel the pain which was inflicted upon us as children. However these defence mechanisms is exactly what makes us, as adults; suffer the most as they give a distorted view of our perceptions of the present reality. Our problems in the present are, but are also caused by: fear, dejection, anger, stress and lack of true contact with other people.

The aim of PRI is to help us work towards becoming aware of the destructive actions of these defence mechanisms, to stop the defence and subsequently break them down or dismantle them.

Behind our defences hides the old pain which we have had to repress as a child because allowing ourselves to feel it at that time would have been so painful that we would have not been able to endure it. The situation of the child that we were differed greatly from the situation of the adult that we are now: we were small, dependent and at the mercy of others for the care, love, warmth and understanding that we needed. We had no choice in this: if our parents did not give us what we needed, there was no way out, we could not go away and find other parents.

Moreover young children have no awareness of time. This means that a situation with lack of love, insufficient amount of touch and comforting in times that we were distressed seemed, to the child we were, last endlessly without a prospect of change [it will last for ever, if my family doesn't like or love me, nobody will - ever etc.].

Through dismantling the defence and admitting the old pain we can see and feel the old pain for what it is: old, not belonging in the present but to the child we were still very painful and life threatening.

Deep inside and throughout we realise then that it is not necessary any more to defend ourselves against these feelings through all sorts of defence mechanisms. This was in the past, and the past is gone. We are adults now and not dependent any more on one or two people responsible for fulfilling our basic physical and emotional needs. As adults we now have the ability to fulfil our own needs. We always have a choice now and we have awareness of time, matters that the child we were had no grasp of. Therefore, if it had not developed defence mechanisms, in many cases the child we were would have been exposed to unbearable pain.

The aim of PRI therapy isn’t to feel the old pain in the (false) hope we can do some work on it in order for it to go away. The aim of a PRI therapy is to live our lives increasingly free of defences. Also then when a defence is being activated, we can recognize these ourselves and can dismantle it more effectively, with accelerating speed, so that we can eliminate the destructive effect of it in our daily lives. Then we can experience life for what it actually is: mostly surprisingly unburdened [Oh, how nice!!! Probably not easy to achieve though and that's important to realize!? And I am skeptical to all sorts of (manipulative) coping-methods... Only covering things up? They are much less needed than you think?? And used much more often than needed, with people who could work things through more? I think Miller, Jenson and Bosch etc. thinks so too. And talking loudly about these things together with narrating what we have been through step by step also contributes, are maybe the only needed steps for the less harmed to recover??]."

---

Brief summary: because of the nature of the defences (what therapists see as dysfunctional behavior) we can't just change them to functional, at least not with (long-)lasting effects/results Jenson and Bosch thinks. Janov etc. agrees? Good, clever girls and boys "can" though? As they have always been able to!? If it was a question of intelligence and intellect only, then... How many wouldn't then be cured? But cognitively knowing IS a step for Bosch and Jenson. And for Janov, and probably others I don't know of.

The ones succeeding with this method long-lastingly are probably much less harmed??? Probably hardly harmed at all?

---

Silently: Words, words, words... Yes, is there a Wall of Words - and a Wall of Information too, struck me... Are we hiding behind them? Can they both be beneficial, in connecting people with each others, in new connections and relations, but also be problematic? Walls against what? Anything? Or? And who uses most words? Who has been using most words during history? Talking above ones head!?? As if one didn't exist or was counted on, had nothing to contribute with!?? Hadn't the child, doesn't the adult now have?? I can't help being a little ironical... Again. Hmmm...

And who are given the opportunity to speak up today (for instance through the technique) and are now raising their voices (or trying to raise them)?

And that about silence, and ignoring, taking no notice, disregarding... But aren't there options? Forums where you get a true, genuine exchange? And other forums where you get less or hardly anything? Can one choose? Are there choices? Actually!!??

How was it now with the Master Suppression Techniques?