Monday, May 24, 2010
On Unified Field Theory in Psychology
Albert Einstein spend the latter years of life in pursuit of a general field theory; that is, something to explain how gravitational field sand electromagnetic fields intersect. How they can be encompassed in a single englobing theory. We are also looking for such a theory so that we no longer chase down every new symptom or disease as independent of all others. This is particularly true when it comes to the psychologic and psychosomatic diseases. What should seem obvious, that neurology, psychology and biology all intersect in the human body, seems to have been forgotten in the piecemeal approach in these three disciplines. In order to understand them, therefore, we need to approach the whole system as it interacts. I believe that what we have now is an inchoate Primal Field Theory that links various aspects of the human condition together. For example, in the field of biology there are tumor suppressor genes that control runaway developing cancer cells. These interact with human experience (psychology), even in the womb, that affects these suppressor genes and may allow for the development of cancer. In addition that may then lead to later manifestation of brain cancer (neurology). If we look only at presenting pictures of the tumor our field of inquiry is quite narrow. Or if we look only at the presenting symptom of obsession we are again at a loss. Or if we examine only the blood system it is too confining to provide answers. A Primal Field Theory indicates how they all intersect and interact to produce disease. I believe we will never arrive at causes until we embrace field theory. Otherwise, we are the position of knowing more and more about less and less; studying the minutae of a symptom, hoping to discover ultimate causes. It won’t happen.
What I find even more important is how to treat these diseases. A psychologic approach eliminates a rounded understanding, as does any single approach such as the neurological approach. This permits such conclusions as someone acts out violently because he is deficient in serotonin. Or migraine is due to insufficient vasoconstriction. So we add coffee to the mix, and the patient gets better. Is the problem solved? The manifestation or symptom may be but not the basic problems.
How then can we be proficient enough to understand phenomena in all three disciplines? There are possibly a few in the world who are competent enough but perhaps, that is not necessary. Perhaps, field theory can set the direction of research and then specialists can help out. I am not proficient in biology, for example, but my experience, current research and our investigation of natural killer cells leads me to theorize that these cells which are on the lookout for newly developing cancer cells, are heavily affected by experience. We find that they work in see-saw fashion with levels of cortisol. When we reduce cortisol levels in patients, natural killer cells are enhanced.
We can add this or reduce that but we cannot understand the whole problem without a field theory. Otherwise, we will only find what we are narrowly looking for, and no more. Another example, we learn that telomere cells respond directly to cortisol levels; the lower the resting cortisol level the longer the telomere cells. Since this length may explain how long we may live, it is crucial to investigate it within a field theory. Otherwise we learn a great deal about telomeres (and the research is important) but not about how the psychologic/experiential affects it all. All aspects of experience are in play in our bodies at all times. We can abstract them for study but it is still an abstraction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Art, I feel you have perhaps opened up a great keg of worms for the scientific community. I followed every word in this blog but I was not as conversant as you with the biologic, psychological or medical modalities. Actually, excuse my impertinence, but I felt it was distracting to us laymen. I would prefer to offer an even simpler explanation of where mankind is currently at.
ReplyDeleteThe implications of Primal Theory suggest to me that neurotic man will forever search for stuff as a neurotic act-out, and he dose this buy THINKING--thinking that thinking is some superior facet of our being. I contend this is more EGO than any real advantage to living life. Ego being what we hope others think of us, rather than what we really know, deep down, we are. I agree with you Art that there is a unifying factor out there suggested by Einstein et al and Stephen Hawking's suggestion that it ought to be simple for us ALL to understand. However, it is somewhat presumptuous to assume the answer is to be found in science. Science, by it's nature is a THINKING exercise and IMO 'thinking', in and of itself, is neurotic. Sadly, there is no way we are able (as neurotics) to get beyond THINKING, but we can attempt to reduce it to it's simplest common denominator. That simple common denominator is IMO Primal Theory.
Primal Theory IS Unified Field Theory. If this one single notion could be grasped and accepted I feel (believe) we could be well on the way to creating a better way of life for us humans. However, it would take, I conjecture, three or four generations in order to prevent trauma for the children, babies and fetuses of tomorrow.
Art, you are proposing a unified field theory...a project that keeps the scientists heading in a progressive direction, even when there is no one to lead the way.
ReplyDeleteTo do that, we must begin by finding a source of revenue. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. A unified field theory must be developed with independent funding because governments are not going to listen. You've tried for over forty years...that's long enough.
OK....what's a good way to raise the funds? Anyone have any ideas?
Dear Art ," what would be more important is to treat these diseases" -very well said but I wonder whether neurotics and post primal men by the way would have the strength or willpower to refuse a diatetic change for example in case high blood was not caused(only) by psychic reasons .When I lookat my diabetic friends it seems very difficult to quit sugar consumption as well ,in spite of life ìs in danger .I sometimes fear that after psychic illness is removed people think they are exempt of nature`s (o t h e r !) laws and keep on "sinning".Yours emanuel P:S. I would propose a fourth "item" in this field theory :social integration ,money etc....
ReplyDeleteRichard: I am all ears and thensome. art janov
ReplyDeleteCan science really change the behavior of human reaction?
ReplyDeleteTo know why we act the way we do has, in my mind, no bearing on the outcome.
There are as many examples as situations that prove my point.
There is plenty science that provides evidence of the origin for an illness that is not accepted, for many reasons, by medical professionals or governments.
The person who acts out knows (subconsciously) that he/she acts out. Pointing out the reason, or providing scientific evidence, does not change their behavior.
To know that low cortisol is the source of a dysfunctional immune system does not mean we can change the set point and prevent future illness. Cortisol test are not paid by most health insurance and many physicians don’t even know about the impact cortisol has. To know that PTSD and early childhood trauma can be the reason for it is known since 2002, but not accepted, neither in the everyday medical field nor by governments who are suppose to be the protector of human dignity.. http://www.aaacworld.org/info/low%20cortisol%20by%20PTSD%20research.pdf
To know that high blood sugar is not always caused by eating too much carbohydrate, it can also be caused by MSG (Monosodium glutamate). To acknowledge this fact would mean the whole food industry must shut down their additives – and this will not happen. The profit from food with MSG is too great (nearly 70 % of all packaged food and meals served in restaurants).
Mothers who have all the information why breastfeeding is beneficial to her and her child, will not breastfeed. To know it is not changing the outcome. She is driven and must fulfill her own wants and needs and will choose a career over her child needs.
What I’m saying is, the “natural” human being no longer exist. Feeling what is good and right is erased by many. The majority has lost the wisdom of what sustains humanity in its intuitive nurturing original form.
The reason is inflicted trauma that has changed the genes, and the now altered genomes are the driving force for our action and reaction. Humans are haunted and controlled by unfulfilled needs that in due course lead to irreparable deficits in the next generation. Scientific wisdom alone cannot help convert these alterations.
Sieglinde
Sieglinde: A very thoughtful letter. Do you all agree? dr. janov
ReplyDeleteSieglinde
ReplyDeleteWe must in some way with our "human" behavior… according to the standards we are human ... pursue the matter and hence using the commercial resources that can promote the dissemination of primal therapy.
I mean… search for any "human representative"... a person known to "commercial"… kick-start the issue if it might be physiologically to feel see and hear ... and psychological how we interpret it? The evolutionary development of the brain has the solution for the elite… who desired equation in response to the question. It's just a matter of finding someone representative... a person to program and send I will say it again "primal therapy is potentially among the most important of any research in any field over the past century " It has much that we attempt to do for it.
Frank
I remember a interview to Savador Dali. He said something like "The day that somebody united the fields of neurology, biology and psycology will be the greatest discover of humankind". Also in an autobiography title "the secret life of Salvador Dali" trere's a chapter call "My intrauterines memories" where he explain he´s experience of birth that is very near the janov theory.I mean that it seems that artist a more aware of this new discipline.
ReplyDeleteSieglinde, for those who never change, I would say the facts are never actually 'realised'....never absorbed to a point where they become real. The neurotic mind is expert at getting lost. It's easy to forget facts while our thoughts are constantly pushed and pulled by huge unconscious forces. We look for somewhere peaceful in our mind, and if that peaceful little place has a few nagging facts surrounding it.....well.....let's just ignore those facts for now....because we must rest at some point. If we cannot rest at all we will go completely mad.
ReplyDeleteIt really is that serious, but we can't feel how serious it is. We just go on and on like mindless robots....stuck in a very small realm of consciousness. I feel that way right now. I can only describe myself. Perhaps the hardcore intellectuals or the sympaths don't feel any nagging sensation at all.
Dear Art and Sieglinde ...unfortunately I have to agree to Your pessimistic view of the matter -but w i t h o u t feeling scientists -they d o exist - there would be only profit makers in all those god-damned industries!! Yours emanuel
ReplyDeleteI do very much agree with Sieglinde.
ReplyDeleteIf one also can see (can stand seeing) that Nature has always been inclined - been so as a matter of a principle as eternal as one that would have to be part of any fundamental physicist's "TOE" - our lineage to take a turn in the direction that Sieglinde touched so unusually well and widely on, then one is on the verge of an 'Encompassing (or extended) Primal Theory' for how we are, and for how we get (develop) and got (evolved) to be all the ways we are.
The "natural human being" may not exist anymore. Or they will be expelled to reservations like Huxley's Brave New World, though we would call them eco-communities. If people are conditioned / raised to obey authorities, then anyone not being an authority has a very slim chance of being heard. When my youngest sister was pregnant, I put Leboyer's book "Birth Without Violence" on the table. My mother freaked out and made it clear my sister shouldn't read the book. Not because my mother had read it, but because delivering a baby is something only the medical establishment can advice on. For them childbirth is like going to the dentist, you don't experiment yourself and you don't take advice from anyone who is not a dentist. As a man I had no right to tell a woman what to consider before delivering a child. That's my experience.
ReplyDeleteI am going to be a bit of a party pooper here because I dont think a Primal Field Theory is necessarily a good idea. But before I give a reason why I think that it needs pointing out that scientific disciplines are growing closer and this is part of a wider realisation of how biology, psychology and neurology are underpinned by evolution itself. Darwin's theory is the greatest force for unifying different fields and it is doing so as we speak. But it takes time for data to be collected, observed, hypothesized, theorized, tested, deductions drawn, re-tested ad infinitum. Science is a slow process and this means that it is sometimes behind where we want it to be and behind where we know it should be. But the alternative situation is one where people rush and make hasty intuitive connections that turn out to be dead ends. Indeed, when we consider how inadequate Freud's 'theory of man' is today in the light of new scientific discoveries we can see the danger of premature hopes. Indeed, where theory is incorrect it can actually hold up real progress because new thinking becomes stifled. (How much time and how many patients were not treated properly because people clung to Freud's grand theory?) The scientific method, as seemingly incoherent and disparate as it seems ensures that new ideas and chance discoveries do emerge even if this occurs in a sporadic and seeming chaotic way. Once the aim is for complete unification or harmonisation then surely that might be seen as a form of neuroticism. Science is a never ending story and there is no end in sight.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Primal theory does already play a role in helping to establish greater unity within the field of psychology. (NB: There are actually 53 separate fields of psychology at last count!). It seems to me that Primal Theory is part of a greater movement in psychology that began with the decline of behaviourism (itself a reation to an intrapsychic approach towards the 'isolated' individual self) and the increasing consciousness that there is no individual divorced from his context, that the person is always part of the interpersonal, that we are raised and embedded in what Winnicott called a 'holding environment'. To my mind Primal Therapy is about helping people emerge from the pain they are in by feeling it and integrating it. This is itself an evolutionary process of transition from one physical state to another and it is in creating this movement that PT links to biology and neurology too by recognising man as evolving animal. Indeed, psychology has recognised this inner evolutionary process in the work of Piaget and Kohlberg amongst others. Most recently the constructive developmental approach has sought to develop it further (see The Evolving Self, Kegan, (Harvard 1982) (especially pages 122 to 124 which extremely strongly echoes Dr. Janov's position in my view and well worth a read too).
What I am trying to point out is that science is moving in a good direction but it will always be up to us as individuals to interpret its data. Why should we expect any greater unity in science than what we find in society at large. But that doesn't mean there aren't good people out there doing really good things which are producing strong convergences in different fields. But lets not rush to convert convergence into unification just yet - it wouldn't be scientific!
Yes, I would agree with Sieglinde. Her observations about the current state of humanity beg the question as to what happenned far in our past that most of mankind has become so neurotic. What was the "Original Neurosis" , then passed on from generation to generation? Other living things are not crazy like we are (unless they have contact with us).It's all pretty strange and puzzling...
ReplyDeleteSecondly, with respect to the fact that knowing intellectually why we behave has no effects on our behavior: I think about that often while I read Dr Janov's books, because , of course, reading his books is mostly a head trip. One would then have to do Primal Therapy to get any real benefit. Since I have no intention of doing that (not because I am not convinced), I wonder if I am wasting my time reading his books. But I continue to do so because it is so FASCINATING to read them (sayeth Mr Spock!).
Back tomorrow possibly with my explaining Wilhelm Reich's Unified Field Theory , based on the presence of apparent primordial cosmic Orgone Energy in living and non-living systems....unless there are objections here to my mentionning his theories...and unless I find myself unable to summarise his complex theory.
Marco
CBT: Project Management Disguised as Science
ReplyDeleteI was visiting my mother in a rehab hospital today and found myself talking with a social worker educated in the state where I live (CT). She majored in psychology there. I said to her, "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy", nodding and smiling and enunciating clearly. She said "Yeah, that's all there is." I said "whatever happened to Primal?" She said, "Insurance companies won't pay for it. For insurance companies to pay, you have to be able to show progress at regular intervals. If a patient does not show progress at regular intervals, then insurance stops paying." I had heard something similar from a physical therapist (about physical therapy and insurance) only minutes earlier. But the conversation continued... I said "But what if the psyche doesn't actually work that way?" She nodded enthusiastically and said "Yeah, exactly." I commented that the depth/feeling therapies seem to have been pushed aside, but that I had had such therapy decades ago and found it helpful. This brought additional affirmation from the social worker. Hmmm, we weren't in conflict.
Following this conversation, I found myself thinking of Art Janov and the so-called "cognitivists", and I realized I was very confused now as to exactly who they are, as this was apparently not one of them?
Yo Richard, why don't you raise a ton of money and start an insurance company with...a difference?
Just sayin'...
Walden
Will: You are clearly a professional. Yes? others opinions? art janov
ReplyDeleteOne of the world's very best physicists who also is very passionate (uniquely so) about trying to counteract activities (of people) that stifle progress by/within the process of Science (am referring to Lubos Motl), has made me aware that there most likely already exists a mathematical-theoretical framework that approximates (what can most realistically be meant by) a TOE.
ReplyDeleteEven though an important part of this mathematical framework ("string/M-theory") has recently been shown to throw new and more deeply revealing light on inorganic chemistry I doubt that "string/M-theory" (or any other mathematics) will ever be used to re-formulate the 'evolutionary philosophical type' principle that I might have caught a glimpse of and have tried to express precisely textually.
This insight (that I have tried to express) has its roots in the indisputable truths contained or implied in Art's primal theory. That is, what primal needs of individuals are, and approximately how a 'massive enough' negation of any such need or needs must necessarily initially be handled and obviously can and in many individual cases are subsequently automatically "developed around" in order to be individually and often also reproductively survived.
The only thing that I might have added is the realization that the role of *such predicaments'* in the phylogeny of fauna is to in tandem (in combination) with evolutionary pressures of "opportunity type" form naturally selective scenarios to the effect of creating a (not so strange) attractor in the direction of AEVASIVE (ambiadvantageous evolved...) adaptations.
This principle does (ultimately) pertain to the (by string/M-theory indicated) in some ways infinite and in some other ways 'infinitely constrained' Multiverse's apparent capacity to generate sufficiently Earth-like biospheres (at least one such!).
As some of you might be able to see(?), I was not just enthusiastically (and AEVASIVEly) plaiting together my explanatory philosophical terminology _as a joke_ (which I of course partly also did), and for it to turn into nothing but a joke.
For example, I also enjoy being able to say (with some degree of logical/rationally derived sense) the follow fun thing:
When a (the) TOE of physics is philosophically combined (not mathematically mixed) - or is seen to complement as in "seen to be a peripheral part of" my (of course only very marginally my) or any other similar enough ultimately encompassing (but even so not devoid of explanatory power) evolution pertaining philosophical take on "What Is going on", then one have something that can be described as a framework for a "Foremost Overview Of Truth" or 'FOOT'. %}
I remember reading an article as a young man that quoted research work done by clinical psychologists. I had slowly started becoming aware that there is something seriously amiss in the way children were being “reared”. (One does not rear a child, you let it grow)
ReplyDeleteI was upset and angry at the gross stupidity of these so-called “scientists” . The article described how clinical psychologists had determined that children needed eight hugs a day.
My god, I angrily joked with everyone. “What would happen if they got nine hugs a day? Or god forbid, what if they only got seven, or perhaps seven-and-a-half?” .
I had arguments with some friends who were doctors, about all of this. Listening to them going on and on about how we don’t really know what children need because the studies have not been done.. etc., made me sick to the stomach.
I said to myself and anyone who cared to listen: “I bet if you had to tell clinical psychologists that children need love, they would first have to take 50 children, expose them to “love” , and then another 50 who would not be so exposed, (double blind study) for ten years and then evaluate them, and only then would they be able to agree or not.”
Is science still mired in that awful mindset? With exceptions, I think so. Radio and television talk-show “experts” disgorge the most inane ideas and arguments about human psychology - witness Dr. Phil - although I have noticed that the word “feelings” - ala Art Janov - has popped up here and there. They still know nothing.
Obviously, these researchers cannot simply accept the beautiful simplicity of nature and evolution. As a young man, I needed some sort of a standard, or blueprint by which I could
measure things. I turned to wild animals. Bingo. Free animals always do right by their offspring. Do they need science? Have they read books on child-rearing?
Sieglinde, although I am also saddened by the present state of human suffering, I do not think that our genes have been radically or permanently altered, simply because all or most newborn babies have the ability to cry. In my opinion, as long as a baby can cry, there is the possibility that, given the right circumstances, it can be helped to get rid of its pain. What is also sad is that the right help is not universally available at present. The damage comes after conception, as recently pointed out by Art. For some, the damage comes and continues throughout their lives. We have to educate parents about the fact that babies need to cry their pain out right from birth. We need to educate young couples about natural and non-violent birth, as described by Frederick Leboyer. We also have to teach the entire world how to listen and to let people cry. Sadly, Primal therapy cannot be franchised in a nilly-willy fashion around the globe. It is all very sad because the suffering is so universal and immense. Patrick
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI recognize Sieglinde's message as being one of hopelessness and finality. Among the items of futility lie science and knowledge. Dr. Janov asks if we agree.
No, I don't agree. While it is true that knowledge by itself is not strong enough to counter deep instincts of survival, there are dynamics to look at other than just the most obvious and direct ones. For instance, Sieglinde notes that knowing about the benefits of breast feeding does not make reluctant mothers do that. This is true. However, in a larger scope, the knowledge that has circulated in the last twenty or thirty years in this area has now infused the mainstream to the extent that breast feeding is widely accepted in public and recommended by the medical establishment. This rise in support of breast feeding means that many on-the-fence cases will be swayed for the better, even while the stubborn ones will remain. The numbers matter. It means a different percentage of breast fed individuals reaching professional and voting ages at some point, leading to positive feedback effects both in this particular area of infant care and other areas of infant care, and perhaps in yet other unanticipated places. And so on. If the next generation is measurably more gentle than the current one, then even if the delta is tiny, there may be an important movement afoot. This is evolution itself.
I'd like to point out something that may not be obvious. Primal Therapy bootstrapped itself in a place where no such therapy existed before. In order for that to happen, there had to be a functional application of knowledge, new and old, being applied by people who at that time and by any measure would have to be considered neurotics. The individual course of therapy itself includes the ability to learn your primal style (that's knowledge too, not just feeling) and apply it in the face of well learned habits and powerful forces to the contrary bubbling up from below. Yes, there is a way to use knowledge for good, and knowledge is not doomed to a status of feebleness.
Will, I really liked your piece on science. I love the balance that you bring when you comment here.
Walden
Well, I said yesterday that I would perhaps further contribute to this important topic by explaining Wilhelm Reich's Unified Field Theory in the realm of "psychology" (which , for him ,like for Dr. Janov, is really a holistic psycho-biology ), and his Unified Field Theory of the Universe; but , after re-reading some stuff by him last night, it would be impossible to adequately summarise here, and I also don't think I understand it well enough. But, if anyone is interested anyways in what Reich had to say , here are a few leads . In the realm of "psychology", and especially with respect to his philosophy of science, all his books deal with these topics of course.His theories, in my opinion, are very similar to Dr Janov's, but Dr Janov disagrees. We will let each interested person come to their own conclusions about the differences and similarities between Reich and Janov (personally, I think they are both geniuses with amazing insight into human beings; I say this objectively, not to flatter).
ReplyDeleteReich was a cross-disciplinarian par excellence because he had to be , given the data he was collecting on human beings and their neuroses from various angles, and data on various other living systems. With respect to his Unified Field theory of the Universe (he did not call it that), he claims to have discovered an energy called Orgone which pervades the whole universe as a substratum, and which has a definite quality in living systems. See his " Ether , God and Devil" for an elaborate explanation. Now, most people would be asking by no: how come other scientists have not discovered this Orgone Energy? Good question, of course.Reich was a scrupulous scientist and his experiments are there to be replicated, and practically no one has done so. I don't know personally if this energy exists since I have not replicated his experiments. Reich claims to have been able to "accumulate" this energy in what is called an Orgone Accumulator ( a concentrated form of the energy ). Again, I have never been in one, but most people who have been in them report the same effects on various living and non-living systems. On human beings,for example, most report a pleasurable expansion of their selves, bodies, and various psychological and physiological effects. Reich presented his Orgone data to Einstein, and the latter did not refute Reich, but he did not follow up on the data either.Reich also used this orgone accumulator in his treatment of cancer patients, as an adjunct to his his bio-psychotherapy of these patients, and the results seem significant. See his tome "The Cancer Biopathy". Reich, by the way, came to the same conclusion as Janov about some cancers; the cause: MALIGNANT DESPAIR.
Well, that's enough. As I said, this stuff is complicated , and I don't know if I can really do it justice.
Marco
Dr. Janov, thanks.
ReplyDeleteRichard: “for those who never change”, is exactly my point. The question is, why they don’t want to change? What is holding them back? A deep underling fear of not being loved, not getting their need fulfilled? When fear dominates, all reasoning fails.
The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that 1 in 3 babies in the United States are delivered by c-section. Some health care experts believe that many c-sections are medically unnecessary. https://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/240_1031.asp
If we look at the movie Nils Bergmann produced we understand why natural birth is absolutely and not only for the babies immune system. The same reason applies to after birth care and feeding: http://www.kangaroomothercare.com/research.htm (the movie can be a big trigger)
The question is, how many mothers are willing to do these most necessary steps for their child? Only a mother who is in tune with herself, who is not controlled by fear.
Emanuel: is it really a “pessimistic view”?
macor22: This is what I’m asking: “What was the "Original Neurosis", then passed on from generation to generation?”
I have found three generations of neurosis in my family. Nearly the same pattern of abuse, domination instead of love and respect, neglect and rejection was handed down like an heirloom. The sad part is, two of my brothers continued the childhood imprint.
Sieglinde
Hi Will, good to hear from you again. I don't really understand your argument. I don't see how it could be harmful to pursue a unified field theory. It is nothing more than an attempt to understand how everything connects.
ReplyDeletePatrick: you are right. It cannot be franchised although I have had offers from businessmen. Obviously we would not consider it. It is a precious gift for the patient and us. We nurture it carefully and never commercialize it. art
ReplyDeleteDr. Janov, quick question: How do the stuffed animals at the Primal Center work, I don't think I read any mention of stuffed animals anywhere
ReplyDeleteKaz: for those who had teddy bears etc during childhood it rewakens many memories. art
ReplyDeleteSince the blog theme is; "Unification Theory" I'll throw in my two cents worth:-
ReplyDeleteA unification theory is a theory (idea) that makes 'sense' of EVERYTHING.
But understanding is the booby prize, because it settles NOTHING.
Making sense signifies the 'mind' integrates what's going on, without an inner conflict in the thinking process.
Theorizing (ideas, thinking) are only what neurotics indulge.
In order to transcend neurosis we need--SADLY--to have a "Unification Theory of Everything."
There's only one way IMO to transcend neurosis--prevention.
Therein afterward, we can just LIVE
Dr. Janov,
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Justice Department, an estimated one million children in the United States are abused yearly in the production of child pornography, a $3 billion business annually.
This one million speaks only of child prostitution, not including all other child abuse.
A clinical social worker and executive director of Hedge Funds Care, Preventing and Treating Child Abuse said: “I wish I had an answer for Judge Weinstein’s plea that we treat rather than imprison this type of pedophile, the viewer of child pornography. But there are no known acceptable and effective treatments. And until we have such a cure, and since this is a crime, then jail is the place where they belong.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/l28porn.html
My question is, how much can PT help child molesters?
Sieglinde
Sieglinde,
ReplyDeleteI think it behooves us all to remain open to the idea that no matter how far we think we may have come, we are not necessarily better than those "others" in whom we can identify this neurosis and that neurosis. If we find ourselves thriving on "the difference", then it is a signal to look again. Without humility there can be no real change. That's how I see it.
Cultivate a taste for weeds, and chew often, and with company.
Walden
Dear Dr Janov, A British psychologist called Oliver James appears to subscribe to many of the principles you expound in your books (a bit of a renegade too, by all accounts), especially with regard to raising young children well, aged 0-3. 'How Not To F**k Them Up' is his latest book, which is just about to be published.
ReplyDeleteIn an article for The Times newspaper a week last Saturday, he mentioned personally undergoing 'The Hoffman Process' recently. Upon further investigation, this modality is much closer to Primal Therapy than conventional cognitive approaches, because it is focused on childhood experience and feeling unresolved emotional issues. Are you familiar with this, and if so; what do you make of it? Sounds like PrimalTherapy-Lite to me, but surely that must be far preferable to CBT? It appears to be widely available as well.
Ben, England.
PS: Creating this blog was a masterstroke - did you anticipate that it would become a forum for erudite discussion, via the comments facility?
Sieglinde: Sorry it sounds bad but I try to treat those who merit it. I cannot treat a pedophile because I think it is a major crime, destroying someone's life. Most of the psychotic women I have treated have been sexually abused, incest as a child. It is horrific. art janov
ReplyDeleteBen: I never heard of the book, Ben. But I will look it up. I never heard of the Hoffman process. And I only did the blog cause my wife insisted on it for over a year. Finally I ceded to her wishes and I am glad I did. I now realize that there are so many erudite people out there. It is most reassuring. Going to Paris tomorrow. art janov
ReplyDeleteBen: Speaking of erudite people. I am going to start a new semester of training for all those interested in September. Thus far all students tell me they are and were fascinated. Lots of CDs and films to see. art janov
ReplyDeleteHello Art Janov,
ReplyDeleteI was just reflecting on this...
I think 'Primal' (Janovian trauma-imprint theory) is in effect a "unified field theory" of psychology for the simple reason that it comfortably correlates with biology and psychology (human motivation), and of course it makes excellent sense in relation to itself, as a psychological system, and in my view excellent sense in terms of evolution - that is, we can understand why it should have come to be for adaptive purposes.
I don't know of any other theory that does this at all. I can't even imagine how another theory could make sense like primal theory does.
Hi again Dr Janov,
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but I want to ask the question:
I know you have mentioned that there are some neurotics who can tolerate a certain drug without dying, whereas a 'normal' could not.
Do you think this applies on the emotional level to some degree as well? Does neurosis also serve to galvanise the system to tolerate further abuse but without further damage?
So, for example, after you have recieved a series of emotional shocks so that that 'damaged' part of yourself shuts down, can that part of you (that has been put off line) in turn no longer be further damaged (as much), regardless of future shocks?
Any thoughts?
Andrew: If we are to have a level playing field you need to read my books Primal Healing and The biology of Love. then we can discuss. art
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete