Posted by 64bowtie on August 11, 2004, at 3:38:31
In reply to Re: First let me be sure I'm understanding you » 64bowtie, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2004, at 9:41:27
> You think this is an unstable environment with discussions that tend to placate and support pathology?
<<< I sense that Babblers are in unstable situations, reaching out for constancy and stability here at Babble, thus I represent more (in)-stability when I post here the way I do. Sadly I mistyped again. I left off the "in" prefix, totally changing the meaning of my sentence. At no time have I ever intimated or suggested that Babble was in anyway an unstable environment. I apology for typos, now and in the future.
> As opposed to your result oriented technique that tries to change our pathology? And you want to add your contribution of *not* placating and supporting our pathology.
<<< I sense that effort must be honored and conserved (not wasted). Results leans toward doing just those two things. If we seek results instead of comfort, effort is not wasted on placation habits.
<<< I'm not sold on the fact Babblers are suffering from as much pathology as their pdocs want them to believe. I don't buy into the pathology model unless the mri-s and cat scans show anomolies. Pathology may serve to get the government or the insurance comapny to pay bills by requiring (blindly, wink-wink) that clients have a pathology to be covered.
<<< Like I've said many times in many posts, I hear cogniphobia! Many Babblers have a phobia against thinking; seeing themselves as they are in their mind's eye, and accepting what they see. I can't see any reference equating phobias to pathology. Cancer is pathological. Phobias are faulty beliefs based on flawed information, being enacted out physically, much to the clients discomfort and despair. When confronted about their fear of thinking is done successfully, phobics overturn years and decades of conflictedness and confusion within minutes. I have witnessed hundreds of successful encounters and done a few myself, where the conditions were right. Pathologies like those of a Charles Manson or a Jeffry Daumer, don't get fixed by coaching.
> You think that our talk of inner children is one example of the pathology we placate here? And that adults don't have the illusion of inner children?
<<< I studied Transactional Analysis in the early to mid 70s, so I am accutely aware of an internal child overlay concept. For an adult, the child ego-state has a tiny parent, adult and child built in blah, blah, blah... I could go on and on. Whether I believe it or not, I can repeat the tails of how TA works and how skills can probably improve our lives. I can do it with even more gusto for 12 step stuff, from many programs, even. Do I consider that effort and time well spent if I did it now? Nnaaahhhh! My Life-Coaching stuff is the grail, finally, and not just the grail d'jour as TA became for many.
> So that if we were to truly embrace our adulthood, we wouldn't cling to this illusion? But you're ok with imagining yourself as a child and talking to yourself as a child.
<<< The rules are different for this EMDR as you call it and the child ego-state of TA. I accept my conjered fantasy child across the room, whose suffering is only a manifestation of a memory that might continue to haunt me. That haunting can be easily extinguished by this visual technique, employing the powers of the adult visual cortex to update the memory to something "here-and-now" appropriate.
> You think that memories are things that can't cause pain because they aren't real in the sense of being tangible. Are you including flashbacks here?
<<< ...they are not in the here and the now, so participants are not tangible. Good question by the way...
> While you say "I did not say the memories can't hurt you." You also say "[Aside], how do memories hurt anyone? Why would anyone give that much power and energy to an abstraction, a story about what happened to you, that it, the abstraction has the ability to take action against your senses and physically cause pain?", two statements that might appear on the surface to be contradictory. So I'm making the leap to concluding you are saying that memories can hurt you, but only emotionally not physically, and only if you let them.
<<< Thank you for understanding. (((((Dinah))))) I hear acceptance in your realization of the concept. If I were only here for gratification, right now I would be glowing with pride. Thanx!!! I add, that if you are only on the planet to find and be comfortable, any emotional upsetness will destabilize and thus, hurt. My, my, my how life is so much more than that. Go get your share!!!
> You say "I just choose to live in the here and now and time and tides take care of the past." But you also say that you don't deny what happened to you in the past or minimize it. You just choose not to dwell on it. And that anyone can choose to do what you did.
<<< I could add to that but I will go back in my corner and re-hook my leash and be good..., and quiet. You said it so much better than I ever did!
> So my overall view of your message is that you think we choose to feel the way we do now, and we can choose to feel differently if we wish. That we are indulging our child selves and not choosing to live with the freedom an adult self would have.
<<< My dear sweet (((Dinah)))... Thanks for the lesson on how to say my stuff!!! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
> That we should quit indulging ourselves and each other and start making better choices about how to feel. To choose to leave the past in the past. To accept what happened to us, but to choose to leave it in the past where it belongs. To start thinking and behaving like adults.
<<< Can I interest you in becoming my editor. I promise not to post at Babble without your approval if you do!......lol
> ...am I receiving the same message you are intending to send?
<<< Wow!!! How and what do I say, Boss?
Rod
PS: Thanx, many times over!!!
poster:64bowtie
thread:375512
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040805/msgs/376301.html