Psychonanalysis ...

[nicklebleu]

Hi,

The first step of the Work is to observe yourself and detect what multitude of programs inhabit your mind and controll your thoughts and actions...

Thinking about this statement has led me to reflect upon my past - and many questions have surfaced. I would like to post one aspect of this reflection and would like to invite your comment.

When I was 20 I didn't get along with life very much. I might even have contemplated suicide, but in an unconscious way. I was made conscioulsy aware of this fact, when one night, my younger sister came into my room to wake me up and ask for a particular book, which I found totally strange. Some time later she confessed, that the book was a pretext, that she only wanted to see, if I was still alive, because she was under the impression, I would kill myself.

I then realized, I was in a bad way and decided to do something about it: I found an institution offering psychological counselling. I attended one-on-one counselling and group therapy sessions for many years at this institute which followed the theories of Alfred Adler, or Tiefenpsychologie (loosly translated as "deep psychology"). Adler was a pupil of Freud, but parted with him over theoretical disputes.

What I did in this psychoanalysis is similar to "The Work", but somehow still totally different. Similarities include the quest to find out "unconscious proramming", why and how certain settings trigger certain reactions. But also to follow these typical behavioural pattern back to find out where and why they emerged - the theory basically being that you are more or less a blank slate at birth and develop your character based on exeriences and reactions to certains situations in life.

This leads me to my first question: What is the difference between psychoanalysis and "The Work"? Funnily enough, in this institution the process of going though psychoanalysis was exactly called like this: "The Work" - meaning an analysis of your self, and - as a consequence - a change in pattern in reactions towards everyday situations, or to put it differently - to change your character. In this particular brand of psychology, you are the sum of your experiences. You need to go back to the primary
experience, that imprinted the specific way you react now, to be able to first understand your erroneous interpretation of the situation and then change your reaction.

Another question: One of the most vividly remembered sessions went as follows: I had been attending a particular psychoanalyst for about 9 months, and I was still very depressed. I was constantly whinging and complaining: The world doesn't like me, I am no good etc, and not making any progress really. One day I arrived at a session, and the athmosphere was palpably different: The psychotherapist was not her usual kind self, she was very distant and very cold, she had a tape recorder running. So we started the session: I started to complain, and straight away she started to attack me: You are portraying yourself as victim, but in reality you are a perpetrator; in reality we have to protect the world from YOU and not the other way around; etc. I was dumbfounded. Everytime I tried to counter one of her "attacks" she put another one on: That I was self-centered, egotistical, sadistic etc ... I wanted to run away, but couldn't. This went on for approx. 30 minutes until she said, that she only wanted me to see who I was and what I was doing, that she didn't judge me, etc. And the most interesting thing happened: I was practically floating out of the session, and my depression almost suddenly got better ... It was almost a religious feeling.

I don't really understand what went on that day - and I would be very much interested in your opinion. Because in one sense, it helped me getting out of my depression, but on the other hand, I have always carried this with me - as kind of a guilt complex, a kind of trauma: That my evil nature had been "officially" discovered and laid bare ... Was that some form of mind control technique - or conversion technique? Or was it one of these "shocks" or "jolts" that wake you up and lead you onto the right track? And that I should just get on with it?

Looking back, this psychoanalyst certainly was right in many respects: I was a self-centered person, I was egotistical and only interested in my lot etc. - and unfortunately still are in may ways ... but I still feel very uncomfortable with this particular episode, because I feel, that something went on that day that I do not understand.

 

[Aiming]

I had been attending a particular psychoanalyst for about 9 months, and I was still very depressed. I was constantly whinging and complaining: The world doesn't like me, I am no good etc, and not making any progress really. One day I arrived at a session, and the athmosphere was palpably different: The psychotherapist was not her usual kind self, she was very distant and very cold, she had a tape recorder running. So we started the session: I started to complain, and straight away she started to attack me: You are portraying yourself as victim, but in reality you are a perpetrator; in reality we have to protect the world from YOU and not the other way around; etc. I was dumbfounded. Everytime I tried to counter one of her "attacks" she put another one on: That I was self-centered, egotistical, sadistic etc ... I wanted to run away, but couldn't. This went on for approx. 30 minutes until she said, that she only wanted me to see who I was and what I was doing, that she didn't judge me, etc. And the most interesting thing happened: I was practically floating out of the session, and my depression almost suddenly got better ... .

I don't really understand what went on that day ... something went on that day that I do not understand.

Hi nicklebleu,

fwiw:
one of my teachers (homeopath) once told us about an episode similar to yours: Sometimes a therapeut is confronted with an 'ever-whining' patient, who remains in his attitude of being a victim, while objectively he is not. Back then, this teacher called the technique 'paradoxical intervention' and explained that in some cases and for some therapists it is very efficient to make use of this technique and confront the patient with the exact opposite of what he is saying. This can wake him up to his actual condition, can make him understand more about himself and free himself from his self-made suffering.

Maybe someone else can be more accurate, because I am no expert.

 

[Bobo08]

[quote author=nicklebleu]

This leads me to my first question: What is the difference between psychoanalysis and "The Work"?
[/quote]

Hi Nicklebleu,

Based on my limited understanding, I would define The Work as "Striving to learn The Truth about All". "All" here includes both the outer world and yourself. So I would say psychoanalysis is a tool to carry out one aspect of the Work, which is to learn the Truth about yourself.

Learning the Truth about oneself is the essential beginning steps before anything else in the Work can be done. The reason you see psychoanalysis similar to the Work is because most people on this forum have not got past those beginning steps.

[quote author=nicklebleu]

So we started the session: I started to complain, and straight away she started to attack me: You are portraying yourself as victim, but in reality you are a perpetrator; in reality we have to protect the world from YOU and not the other way around; etc. I was dumbfounded. Everytime I tried to counter one of her "attacks" she put another one on: That I was self-centered, egotistical, sadistic etc ... I wanted to run away, but couldn't. This went on for approx. 30 minutes until she said, that she only wanted me to see who I was and what I was doing, that she didn't judge me, etc. And the most interesting thing happened: I was practically floating out of the session, and my depression almost suddenly got better ... It was almost a religious feeling.

I don't really understand what went on that day - and I would be very much interested in your opinion. Because in one sense, it helped me getting out of my depression, but on the other hand, I have always carried this with me - as kind of a guilt complex, a kind of trauma: That my evil nature had been "officially" discovered and laid bare ... Was that some form of mind control technique - or conversion technique? Or was it one of these "shocks" or "jolts" that wake you up and lead you onto the right track? And that I should just get on with it?

Looking back, this psychoanalyst certainly was right in many respects: I was a self-centered person, I was egotistical and only interested in my lot etc. - and unfortunately still are in may ways ... but I still feel very uncomfortable with this particular episode, because I feel, that something went on that day that I do not understand.
[/quote]

It wasn't mind control or conversion techniques, just a standard technique in psychotherapy. What happened in that session was that the psychoanalyst helped you to see yourself as you really are. The resulting shocks are certainly uncomfortable, even painful, but they are essential and immensely helpful for your true self. Of course, you should get on with it.

A book you can read to understand what was going on is "Drama of the gifted child" by Alice Miller. Even if you have read it, I highly recommend that you read it again. It will prove very useful for you.

 

[Laura]

I've written before that no one can approach the study of esoterica without first completely knowing themselves, that this is, in fact, the fist esoteric study: know thyself. Nowadays, this is completely forgotten or misunderstood and all kinds of "new age gurus" just pop up all over the place claiming that they are enlightened or whatever by virtue of some kind of serendipitous experience, channeling, or whatever. That's a load of hogwash, to understate the matter. It is most likely pathology.

Well, anyway, you could say that "depth psychology" is a great deal similar to the beginnings of "The Work."

If you read Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology," you will notice that he makes favorable references to depth psychology, dream analysis, Jungian psychology, and most particularly the ideas of "positive disintegration" as explicated by Dabrowski. We use many of these techniques in our group work in QFS.

Kazimierz Dabrowski, a contemporary of Lobaczewski, described this moral "endo-skeleton" as an "authentic hierarchy of values". By this, he meant a system of values that is self-chosen, determined by higher emotions of empathy and an inner sense of moral conviction. This contrasts with a moral "exo-skeleton", which has its source in an externally-imposed system of values. This environmental influence was called "second factor" by Dabrowski to differentiate it from biological endowment (first factor).

Dabrowski proposed that the majority of people existed at a low level of emotional development, what he called "primary integration" or "level I" in his system, or at the borderline between level I and level II (unilevel disintegration). Individuals at these levels do not have the capacity for an authentic moral endo-skeleton. Their lives are ruled almost exclusively by the first and second factors. An authentic hierarchy of values can only exist with the influence of the autonomous third factor.

Then, there is the "mirror" which is discussed by both Gurdjieff and Mouravieff. That seems to be similar to what you describe in your "unpleasant" encounter with the therapist. Conducted properly, a "mirror session" can bring the individual to a state of "positive disintegration" after which, their inner state can reorganize itself in a more healthy dynamic.

That is, of course, assuming that there is anything inside to work with. If the Cassiopaeans are correct, about half the population does not have any "interior life" to speak of - Organic Portals. Lately, these ideas have been gaining some currency in the concepts of "Right Wing Authoritarian" personalities. We recently published a piece on sott that looks at it another way:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/163349-Moral-Endo-skeletons-and-Exo-skeletons-A-Perspective-on-America-s-Cultural-Divide-and-Current-Crisis

Returning to the idea of the "Mirror," we generally don't do this as "individuals," because we don't think that any single individual can have an entirely clear view of the individual who is under observation. We prefer that the input come from the group so as to get many different perspectives on the problem. Of course, as Mouravieff points out, in strictly "social" terms, this can be an unpleasant experience, but when it is done with true love of the soul, and in an effort to get the person to see the damage they are doing to themselves, it can be a truly liberating experience.

But again, there are those who have nothing "inside" to work with; the mirror can expose that as well. There have been a number of individuals who have been shown a "mirror" of themselves who have not been able to assimilate the information given to them. Vincent Bridges is probably the first individual of this type we encountered. After our experience with him, we began to take greater care in interviewing prospective members of QFS so as to avoid admitting people with obvious pathologies. Now and again, someone who just can't do the work DO get admitted, and we handle them a bit differently now than we did then. Had we understood his pathology at the time, we would have dealt with Bridges in some other way but we were trying to deal with him as just a normal individual who had some difficulties telling the truth and seeing the damage he was doing to others (not to mention himself!) Of course, we are thankful for the lesson he taught us now; heck, if it hadn't been for Bridges and his acting out, we would never have been led to study pathology in the way we were, we would never have been exposed to Ponerology, and so on.

Bottom line is, yes, the early stages of the Work ARE a lot like depth psychology, but there is no "therapist." It is a group interaction where each member is both teacher/therapist and student/client in relation to every other member.

What we find to be unusual and unique is the fact that, once people begin to deal with their issues, programming, instincts, and all other aspects of their "machine," with the ever-present idea that there is a subconscious, an unconscious, a "spirit," so to say - even if only in seed form - something begins to grow inside that manifests so much more of the true self than could ever have been imagined. Not only that, but so-called "higher powers" begin to manifest in subtle and unusual ways. And here, we aren't talking about subjective impressions, but objective and observable changes in the inner dynamics of the individual.

We consider that what we are doing is increasing our "receivership capability." Where it will lead, we do not yet know.

 

[nicklebleu]

Thanks all for your replys!

I have - finally! - received Ouspensky's "In Search of ..." and read it while overseas ... I must say, this is one of the most fascinating books I have read for a long time. Although I don't understand everything - maybe not even a lot - it has given me a few answeres to just this post. G. gives a few answers to the difference of the "work" and "psychotherapy". For me one of the biggest revelations was the fact, that we are - mostly - asleep. I had heard that many times before - but experimenting with staying "awake" for any period of time has really driven the message home: how difficult not to drift off to sleep within a few minutes. I have come to realize, how I run on "autopilot" much of the day, mechanically, even doing the most complex tasks - scary! I have not assimilated much of G.'s material yet, in particular the "octave business" which doesn't really strike a chord with me ... but I may come back to this post in a while with another attempt to give myself an answer.

As to the second part of my question: I am aware, that this was a "paradoxical intervention". However, I still don't really understand what happened. True, it got me out of my "whining depression" and I was able to put the focus on real issues. I was able to look into the darker recesses of my personality and to see that I was a victim AND a perpetrator at the same time. What I am uncomfortable with to this day was that near religious feeling of floating that I had at the end of the session and which I carried with me for some time after that. It felt a bit like I had been injected a drug and was on a prolonged high ... not sure I can bring across what I mean. But maybe it is not very helpful to dwell on this point - as again, there are more pressing matters at hand (currently I am reading "Political Ponerology" which also gives some answers to the above ...)

Thanks!

 

[Renaissance]

I started psychotherapy a couple of months back and am currently finding it very useful. I've felt a block in doing internal work for some time. While doing the necessary reading has helped tremendously, being able to rediscover and express old wounds to someone in person has helped get the ball rolling again.

For a while I used this board as a crutch, having it as my primary means of 'Work'. It's ironic I suppose, that even a board such as this can become a means of distraction when doing imaginary work. A little break from posting was helpful to reevaluate things.