Healing the fragmented self in the IFS therapeutic model

[Buddy]

I bolded the above because I think that it can be tempting to disregard things like this from our childhood because we somehow feel like we 'should have gotten over' what happened 'back then', and not recognize the way that patterns set in our childhood still affect us now.

Hey, Shijing!

I understand what you're saying and why you would think that. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, nothing that I can recall has been disregarded, though. I still do recapitulation and the EE, so my Work is ongoing. I've recapitulated that incident, spraining my brain until I felt I had figured out the reasons/justifications that explain the incident in the terms of the basic psychology and what lessons I could learn from it. (I wouldn't want to get too awful specific, since this isn't the private part of the forum). I have cried my eyes out over that and many more incidents, and it makes a difference in the perspective that follows from the emotional release.

In fact, all the experiences in my life so far confirm what I have read in the psychology material and everything in the General Semantic/Neurolinguistic work involving everything from short-circuited levels of abstraction and the nervous system-projection explanations. It all makes sense! Also the online Wave about 'addictive behavior', which I couldn't recommend too highly, though I try. :)

FWIW, I feel that your posts, in general, are often both helpful and interesting. However, there is a way that you write that seems to dilute the content -- "buffering" is really an appropriate word if used literally here -- so that the main thrust gets buried to various degrees behind the phrasing. It gives me the impression of a tug-of-war of sorts going on as you write, in that there is something that you really want to say, but you are afraid to do so directly, so an extra degree of 'cushion' gets added as you write.

Yeah, sometimes there may be a buffering of sorts. To offer but one example, maybe it's sometimes due to seeing what's wrong with someone having problems in a specific situation and trying to figure out the correct Work terminology and presentation to use to help, while having to restrain myself from shouting "if you'd just put that dang video game up or stop doing that [blank] for awhile, or go back and read chapter X of whatever, maybe your awareness would expand enough to have seen what was coming because you would have been paying attention!!!"

You know what I mean? That may not be a very flattering Work perspective to have, but sometimes I have to try and prevent that from coming across. But I see you've picked up a related impression, though. :)

 

[Mr. Premise]

Yeah, sometimes there may be a buffering of sorts. To offer but one example, maybe it's sometimes due to seeing what's wrong with someone having problems in a specific situation and trying to figure out the correct Work terminology and presentation to use to help, while having to restrain myself from shouting "if you'd just put that dang video game up or stop doing that [blank] for awhile, or go back and read chapter X of whatever, maybe your awareness would expand enough to have seen what was coming because you would have been paying attention!!!"

You know what I mean? That may not be a very flattering Work perspective to have, but sometimes I have to try and prevent that from coming across. But I see you've picked up a related impression, though. :)

Maybe you would help the person more by shouting that than by writing something they can't understand because the language is too academic.

For the record, Bud, I would never say that you write word salad, because when I take the time to carefully read what you write it makes sense, but it is difficult. And I'm a recovering academic (Haven't written a footnote in years! Well, maybe a few...). But why make it so difficult for people to understand you? Maybe you overestimate other people's vocabulary, but remember that English is not everyone's first language. And academic, intellectual English is few people's first language.

Or maybe just remember KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid!) ;)

 

[Keit]

For the record, Bud, I would never say that you write word salad, because when I take the time to carefully read what you write it makes sense, but it is difficult. And I'm a recovering academic (Haven't written a footnote in years! Well, maybe a few...). But why make it so difficult for people to understand you? Maybe you overestimate other people's vocabulary, but remember that English is not everyone's first language. And academic, intellectual English is few people's first language.

Or maybe just remember KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid!) ;)

Or as Albert Einstein said: 'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.' :)

This is actually a good practice to all of us, and can also help those who are not English native people. It doesn't take from the message, imo, and there is much wisdom in simplicity. Remember Little Prince?

 

[obyvatel]

Part I

[quote author=Bud]
Again, if what is being said is true, and if feedback from a group is still crucial, then a reciprocal feedback might be valuable as well. IOW, from what I guess would be a man 3 point of view, some posts from some people come across as cut from the same cloth - template responses, if you will, modified by user preference. And the user doesn't realize they seem to have the same built-in self-assurance that "there is not likely to be any other explanation than what I am offering for you to consider." Having said that, though, many times it turns out to be true, even if it doesn't feel so much like a genuine connect, or conscious interaction.
[/quote]
I am not sure that you are referring to the interaction that transpired in this particular thread but I will work with that assumption which seems logical. The first lines that you wrote on this thread were
[quote author=Bud]
If you want to come to grips with the inner child issue, I have a story and two methods that you might find useful and time-saving.
[/quote]
What you described was not clear to me and when I stated that, your responses became more difficult to understand for myself (and apparently others too). I just want to state that personally I have no reason to be emotionally invested in the correctness of the IFS method in this context - I did not come up with it. I came across it very recently and thought it would be useful and shared it along with some initial doubts that I had about the approach. Personally, I am open to other methods provided I can comprehend them in a practical manner. If you want to elaborate on some stuff that worked for you, please do post it. There is a thread specifically dedicated to inner child work or a new thread or whatever you think is appropriate.


Part II - The method of exclusion
I am quite familiar with the method of exclusion that Mouravieff talks about in Gnosis from the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hinduism. Adi Shankara, a Indian philosopher who lived in the 9th century, was a champion of this method. In Sanskrit, this is called "neti-neti" (not this - not this) - by which a person is supposed to arrive at something real (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti). Following this method of exclusion, philosophers have come to the state which they express in a single word "Soham" or (I am That). Bud was talking about condensing everything into a sentence but these guys got it down to a word. The goal of Advaita (non-dual) school is to arrive at this state of realization (I am That) which is regarded as enlightenment.
I am not in a position to judge this exclusion method. Mouravieff says it works, Shankara (very highly regarded in Hindu schools of thought) says it works. Apparently it does. What I am familiar with is some of the fruits that this philosophy produced. Now here, I am talking about the fruits of Advaita philosophy and not the exclusion method - but since the exclusion method forms the core of this philosophy, I thought it may be useful to mention it here in this context. To clarify my position, I have grown up in a culture which by and large venerates the Advaita school. Not every Hindu necessarily follows Advaita philosophy, but it is considered by many as the crowning glory - a sort of ideal to be aspired for. It is the path followed by many who can move beyond what Dabrowski calls the state of primary integration, want to preserve their intellect and have an interest in spiritual development at the same time. Many modern day teachers (Gurus) come essentially from this core philosophy - Jiddu Krishnamurty, UG Krishnamurti are a couple of them who are known in the western world.
The Oneness concept itself has been dissected in several places in the forum - including references to Illion, Chittick and Laura's writings on this topic. To my knowledge, it is generally understood in this forum that such a perspective is not helpful but potentially harmful for people in 3D working in the 4th Way school and aspiring to a STO dynamic. While the exclusion method does not necessarily imply Oneness, it gives me a pause to think that this Oneness concept is what is arrived at by many people who follow this method to its end. Kind of like what lies at the end of the road maybe - or maybe not. Some of the people who say they achieved this Oneness realization speak in a certain way with some characteristic phrases - ironically that seems very much like what Bud wrote above "template responses modified (mostly very little) by user preferences". A recent thread I remember where I had an interaction with Bud was Michael Hutchison's Amazing Un-Peak Experience? which touched upon some of these loosely related issues. Bud seemed to have an overall appreciation for the whole thing (now that is quite a bit of condensation and likely to be inaccurate) while I was coming from the other side.
At the least, anybody who is following or want to follow the exclusion method please take the above information into account.
fwiw
PS: I have most likely behaved like a Man2 here who has done some analysis based on a starting point of belief. :)

 

[shijing]

Maybe you would help the person more by shouting that than by writing something they can't understand because the language is too academic.

Agreed -- shouting can be done in different ways, of course, but every once-in-awhile some righteous indignation is called for, as long as you stay within the forum guidelines. As Mr. Premise indicates, it's not unflattering if it ultimately helps someone.

For the record, Bud, I would never say that you write word salad, because when I take the time to carefully read what you write it makes sense, but it is difficult.

Agreed here too -- I don't feel that what you write is word salad (or noise for that matter), and on the contrary it's often quite helpful; it's just that it can take effort to penetrate. And it's not that this is always the case -- one of the best examples of clear and direct writing on your part was on this thread (apologies to those who can't access it). I suspect it's because your attention was taken away from yourself and directed toward something that was important to you -- but it's clear and concise, and may even have something to do (at least tangentially) with the discussion above about men 2 and 3.

 

[ana]

For the record, Bud, I would never say that you write word salad, because when I take the time to carefully read what you write it makes sense, but it is difficult. And I'm a recovering academic (Haven't written a footnote in years! Well, maybe a few...). But why make it so difficult for people to understand you? Maybe you overestimate other people's vocabulary, but remember that English is not everyone's first language. And academic, intellectual English is few people's first language.

Agreed here too -- I don't feel that what you write is word salad (or noise for that matter), and on the contrary it's often quite helpful; it's just that it can take effort to penetrate.

You may be right, and as after giving it extra attention i'm still not able to find the meaning behind this words, maybe you guys can please help me understand by putting it into a less academic intellectual English :D:

At that point of highest level abstract understanding, all identification (short-circuits between levels of abstraction) has been removed by means of the conscious Work done and one can semantically reduce this level of understanding all the way back to the ground (expansion) without obstruction or short-circuiting caused by confused levels of abstraction.

 

[go2]

For the record, Bud, I would never say that you write word salad, because when I take the time to carefully read what you write it makes sense, but it is difficult. And I'm a recovering academic (Haven't written a footnote in years! Well, maybe a few...). But why make it so difficult for people to understand you? Maybe you overestimate other people's vocabulary, but remember that English is not everyone's first language. And academic, intellectual English is few people's first language.

Agreed here too -- I don't feel that what you write is word salad (or noise for that matter), and on the contrary it's often quite helpful; it's just that it can take effort to penetrate.

You may be right, and as after giving it extra attention i'm still not able to find the meaning behind this words, maybe you guys can please help me understand by putting it into a less academic intellectual English :D:

At that point of highest level abstract understanding, all identification (short-circuits between levels of abstraction) has been removed by means of the conscious Work done and one can semantically reduce this level of understanding all the way back to the ground (expansion) without obstruction or short-circuiting caused by confused levels of abstraction.

It looks like Ana is a tail-puller too.....

 

[shijing]

You may be right, and as after giving it extra attention i'm still not able to find the meaning behind this words, maybe you guys can please help me understand by putting it into a less academic intellectual English :D:

At that point of highest level abstract understanding, all identification (short-circuits between levels of abstraction) has been removed by means of the conscious Work done and one can semantically reduce this level of understanding all the way back to the ground (expansion) without obstruction or short-circuiting caused by confused levels of abstraction.

Sure, and this is a really good example of what we're talking about. The way I read this was basically as follows:

At that point of highest level abstract understanding, all identification (short-circuits between levels of abstraction) has been removed by means of the conscious Work done and one can semantically reduce this level of understanding all the way back to the ground (expansion) without obstruction or short-circuiting caused by confused levels of abstraction.

In other words, what I think Bud is saying here (and he can correct me if I'm off) is that once you've integrated your intellectual and emotional understanding at the most basic (highest) level so that there is no disagreement between the two, that understanding can then be applied at both of these lower levels (intellectual and emotional) in such a way that they do not conflict.

 

[ana]

You may be right, and as after giving it extra attention i'm still not able to find the meaning behind this words, maybe you guys can please help me understand by putting it into a less academic intellectual English :D:

At that point of highest level abstract understanding, all identification (short-circuits between levels of abstraction) has been removed by means of the conscious Work done and one can semantically reduce this level of understanding all the way back to the ground (expansion) without obstruction or short-circuiting caused by confused levels of abstraction.

Sure, and this is a really good example of what we're talking about. The way I read this was basically as follows:

At that point of highest level abstract understanding, all identification (short-circuits between levels of abstraction) has been removed by means of the conscious Work done and one can semantically reduce this level of understanding all the way back to the ground (expansion) without obstruction or short-circuiting caused by confused levels of abstraction.

In other words, what I think Bud is saying here (and he can correct me if I'm off) is that once you've integrated your intellectual and emotional understanding at the most basic (highest) level so that there is no disagreement between the two, that understanding can then be applied at both of these lower levels (intellectual and emotional) in such a way that they do not conflict.

Ok, now reading the explanation regardless of the words you've striked out makes sense to me.

Thanks Shijing :)

 

[go2]

FWIW...I question the value of 'inner child' therapy. I will give a short anecdotal comment and then look at the neuroscience.

I first became acquainted with John Bradshaw's 'inner child' therapy in the middle eighties. I was in a Twelve Step community which embraced the extension of family therapy concepts to the inner man. The idea of the 'inner child' wounded by poor parenting had enough truth to have real momentum.

The risk is the possibility of identification with the wounded 'inner child' archetype and remaining a victim. The Twelve Step Community is a good place to observe the 'fruits' of the latest therapy fad. If it works, people make spiritual progress. If it doesn't work, people die. Within a few years it became clear that 'inner child' therapy had real risks and danger for addicts and alcoholics. The 'inner child' is seldom heard from in those circles for some two decades.

I think neuroscience of learning and memory functions have advanced to a point we don't need the 'inner child' metaphor to understand and transcend the limitations of our personal history.

The human brain has instinctive-motor, feeling, and thinking functions. These functions operate in automatic sequence with survival the first priority for incoming data. If mother yells at me for touching my penis, the instinctive-motor function starts a neuron track that triggers the fear response. If the event is traumatic or repetitive enough the neuron track is myelinated and becomes the default response to genital sensation. The myelinated neuron track is the 'inner child'. It is a conditioned reflex.

A conditioned reflex is transformed by exploration of its history and meaning. We can not enter the brain to clip or heal the myelinated neuron track. We must discover and establish new responses that establish new neuron tracks. The new neuron tracks are myelinated by attention, understanding, and choice. It becomes ones aim, an act of will to refuse to use the old myelineated neuron track some call the 'inner child'. The 'inner child' isn't exactly healed, he is replaced.

The conditioned reflex may presist, but if not indulged it will eventually be supersceded by a new creative response. There is no need to linger after identification and recapitulation of the conditioned fear response and its context. We may need to revisit the event until the exploration is complete. The exploration often reveals new possibilities beyond the conditioned reflex. I have found this method superior to 'inner child' therapy for understanding and transforming a conditioned reflex.

Sources: Self Comes To Mind-Antonio Damasio and Explorations In Active Mentation-Keith A. Buzzell

 

[Laura]

I agree that it is all too easy to become identified with the wounded child. Seeing it, acknowledging it, doing some things for that child within, even doing some mourning is okay, but don't wallow in it. Most of all, sharing it seems to help. You share it, and then you gird up your loins and bootstrap yourself out.

 

[Risen]

Hi Bud, I'd like to add my little part to this conversation. I have found that at times you are very able to communicate at a level that even a child or someone speaking English as a second language can understand and you did that here for me: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=20317.msg204287#msg204287 and also in other topics in the past. I think it may be because some of my posts seem very childlike (when I am very ill) and they elicit a response from you and others as if responding to a young child, so, you are able at times to respond from the emotional center (as many children do) . It seems to me that sometimes you tend to sort of "get stuck" in the intellectual center. I well understand this phenomena. I spend most of my time conversing with people with a very underdeveloped intellectual center and it can be difficult to use the vocabulary I have acquired and talk to intellectual people after spending weeks only speaking with children and the mentally ill. I hope I have explained this coherently. :)

 

[agni]

Within a few years it became clear that 'inner child' therapy had real risks and danger for addicts and alcoholics.

I agree that it is all too easy to become identified with the wounded child. Seeing it, acknowledging it, doing some things for that child within, even doing some mourning is okay, but don't wallow in it. Most of all, sharing it seems to help. You share it, and then you gird up your loins and bootstrap yourself out.

I am glad you both brought up these points. It is very important understanding.

It's certainly can become an emotional constipation if not handled properly (identification with inner child suffering that is), which is toxic to all organism. It's very tough spot to be at & even tougher to get out. Partially because it's difficult to see, recognize & understand that one is hooked on own suffering like a drug, which gives a fake sensation of a "being", and that's what makes it a tough.

Even if original aim is to feel the inner child wounds to see what imprints it has made on a personality it's easy to fall into this kind of oblivion, forgetting the original purpose of the aim, replacing it with an obscure & illogical addiction to own suffering, where aim becomes an excuse for it. (I hope it makes sense)

 

[Gertrudes]

The risk is the possibility of identification with the wounded 'inner child' archetype and remaining a victim.

I fully agree.

And psychotherapy has tracked this path. I am reminded of the documentary "Century of the Self", also commented on the forum. Although having a different focus then what we are currently discussing, it shows how in the 70s therapy emphasized giving people the freedom to not only connect, but dwell within their wounded self, and sometimes what looked like their most primal instincts.
If I remember correctly, several techniques were used to promote the (wrong) idea of one's individuality by wondering endlessly through one's own inner world of anger, pain and so on. It strikes me as something similar, if not the same under a different designation, to the inner child work taken to the extreme.

Not that inner child work is detrimental, it should be quite the opposite, but as Laura and agni reinforced, the problem is when we identify with the wounded child and living it becomes the aim.

 

[Buddy]

Maybe you would help the person more by shouting that than by writing something they can't understand because the language is too academic.

For the record, Bud, I would never say that you write word salad, because when I take the time to carefully read what you write it makes sense, but it is difficult. And I'm a recovering academic (Haven't written a footnote in years! Well, maybe a few...). But why make it so difficult for people to understand you? Maybe you overestimate other people's vocabulary, but remember that English is not everyone's first language. And academic, intellectual English is few people's first language.

Or maybe just remember KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid!) ;)

I understand. I'm not an academic (but offer me a decent script and I could probably play one :)), nor do I try to intentionally write academically. It just comes out that way when, for the most part, I write the way I think when I've been investigating something pretty deeply. :)


-----------------------------------

Or as Albert Einstein said: 'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.' :)

Richard Feynman says something similar, but, as true as it often is, there is an overlooked aspect of that saying. And that is: that it doesn't necessarily follow (from a given example) that the lack of understanding of the reader is the fault of the writer in every case.

Some people will block anything. And some people may differ more in their understandings of simpler concepts than they would if the idea is expressed in a more complicated language. The reason? wrong or incorrect understandings of simpler concepts can be taken for granted by the reader and the reader won't think twice about what he/she 'thinks' he/she understands, whereas, more complicated explanations require some thought and effort - some effort to attend to the message - to be present.

But having said that, I can see that it's not my job to push that, or anything else, on people. Since I was unaware of this 'man 2/man 3 distinction', I was also unaware that we might naturally Work in different 'ways'. So your message is completely clear. And much more meaningful now than it was before. Thank you. :)

-----------------------------------

Hi obyvatel.

FWIW, the idea of "template response" has nothing to do with what you are describing - just the opposite, in fact - more like: 'unthinking', or "a previously thought out response from other actual situations freshly applied where it doesn't belong." It goes unnoticed when it actually does apply, though. :)

Following this method of exclusion, philosophers have come to the state which they express in a single word "Soham" or (I am That). Bud was talking about condensing everything into a sentence but these guys got it down to a word. The goal of Advaita (non-dual) school is to arrive at this state of realization (I am That) which is regarded as enlightenment.

FWIW, I was not familiar with this 'exclusion' method, nor have I been interested in the subject, not have I ever heard of it before, although from your brief description of it, I recognized it instantly. From my perspective, this subject has not been discussed on the forum. It appears to me that what has been discussed regards a flawed interpretation of it and I haven't even read the threads. I'm judging by looking at the linguistic twist, or the English logic error in your summary of what people are supposing it to mean.

When I look at the actual idea, it's not too different from the General Semantic position that "Whatever you say something is, it's not THAT (because if it were, it would be obvious and wouldn't need to be pointed out - or, because that is a process of making an identification between 'thing' and 'thing' on the same level of abstraction)".

Or perhaps, something like what one or two of my Native American friends might say: "Don't tell me what something means, only tell me what it means to you from your point of view because I can see the same thing you do."

Perhaps we could also say that it's "consciousness in a figure - ground context", where there are no "things", only 'bits in a context' where the overall pattern of the bits is the most important property to distinguish, not the visual outlines of some 'kickable' geometry of matter.

Another way to view the idea might be from the Chinese idea: "The TAO that can be spoken is not the eternal TAO", which means: as long as a person just keeps their mouth shut and experiences the world and Universe as a 'whole' the TAO exists. When you go talking about it as if to describe it, you've already defeated yourself, because you first have to open up space between you and 'it' (separate yourself from it) and you have to linguistically chop it up and divide the matter and the consciousness into valueless shell words, which can create an illusion of separateness.

Even another way to look at it might be to see that arriving at "I am That" cannot be done logically within an exclusion form without twisting something. There is that problem with "not" that some people are unaware of.

The word "Not" is asymmetrical. Meaning, it is often incorrectly understood and used as if it were the opposite of "is".

As an example, it might be OK to say "There is not a horse in my driveway", because if it is important to confirm, we can always go look. We should not say: "There is not a unicorn in my driveway", because there is no unicorn to NOT be in my driveway. Do you see what I mean? Or that it's even relevant?


So, as I see it, in this summary, we have an exclusion form leading to an identification form in the same process of thought which is referred to as enlightenment???. At least, I can't see how that would work. Which is why I think the interpretation is flawed. Could there be an issue with a translation of a word or two? I wonder because, from my perspective, the logical end of a non-ponerized exclusion method should result in either a realization that "I am all" (nothing is distinguished from what is there), or (and here I mean the logical 'exclusive OR') "I am nothing" (everything has been distinguished and there is nothing left).

At least this is how I see it at this time. Please ask me to clarify anything that is unclear.
----------------------------------

one of the best examples of clear and direct writing on your part was on this thread (apologies to those who can't access it). I suspect it's because your attention was taken away from yourself and directed toward something that was important to you -- but it's clear and concise, and may even have something to do (at least tangentially) with the discussion above about men 2 and 3.

I get your point. It was also because I wasn't in the writing mode of explaining the way I often think about machine functioning the way I understand it and with regard to a certain topic and in a Work context.

-----------------------------------

You may be right, and as after giving it extra attention i'm still not able to find the meaning behind this words, maybe you guys can please help me understand by putting it into a less academic intellectual English :D:

At that point of highest level abstract understanding, all identification (short-circuits between levels of abstraction) has been removed by means of the conscious Work done and one can semantically reduce this level of understanding all the way back to the ground (expansion) without obstruction or short-circuiting caused by confused levels of abstraction.

I agree with others translation of my comments, with the addition that one must be able to satisfy a child asking "what does that mean?" and to do it smoothly all the way down to the first-level abstraction of simple nouns. And then, when asked "What does that mean?", you can say, "...by that, I mean THAT [pointing finger]". And the child goes: "oh", because the knowledge structure has been filled in completely. :)


----------------------------
Edit: some corrections