Wednesday, February 2, 2011
On the Act Out
A few years ago a man came to attend our training. He did not complete it, and instead went on and spent a lot of his energy trying to put down our therapy and theory. In short, instead of feeling his feeling of "I am a loser and a failure", we became the failure, we are the failure, not him. And he has to continue to do it, wasting much of his life, because that feeling of being a failure is close behind creeping up on him. Otherwise why spend months doing this? This is an act-out pure, denying and running from the feeling of being a loser who failed at a training where we are most lenient and give everyone as much time as they need. And the obsessiveness of anyone who goes on and on in the act-out means that the denied feeling is driving him.
This should inform us of others who act-out; we cannot dissuade them with arguments because that is not why they act-out. They are being driven by their unconscious and arguments are far too weak to change them. That is why cognitive approaches can never make headway on this problem. This man failed because he entered training stating that he already knew about this therapy; he could not learn because he could never admit that he really didn't know. He already had such a stake in being smart that he acted dumb and finally failed. None of this will stop him until he feels, which he will not do because he cannot admit he failed, that he was not so smart, after all. Any obsessive is being driven by his unconscious, and any argument to sway them will mean nothing. That is why the sex criminals who go to anger management or sex education are going to get nowhere. Again, they are not driven by intellect; intellect is not in the driver's seat. Their hidden feelings are. We can amass idea after idea, proof after proof, and people will amass counter-arguments to protect them against their own feelings. Now we know why in those endless TV debates no one ever says, “you are right and I am wrong. “ They go on with the same ideas year after year and they never change. So don’t think your good arguments will change him. They won’t. He will immediately plunge in to find more people who don’t like us and will search out more help to put us down because it has to be us the failure, not him. It is not a false idea he is holding; it is his whole life at stake; that he never succeeded as far as he thought he should.
This is also a lesson in dialectics on which a lot of my therapy is based; the interpenetration of opposites; that is, how things turn into their opposite. Acting smart makes you dumb, acting courageous keeps you fearful, etc. And in our therapy acting afraid makes us courageous and feeling dumb makes us smart. Feeling dead makes us come alive because we are feeling at last. Feeling pain makes it go away; feeling unloved finally allows us to be loved and to take in love. You get the idea; so long as we do not feel our pain it stays and wreaks havoc with our system. When we feel it it stops and we live longer, of that I am certain. One reason is that we reduce the stress hormone levels and that may mean longer telomeres which portend of a longer life. It seems to me that all unfeeling people, scientists too, need to put down a feeling therapy to keep themselves content with their lives, their philosophy and their therapy. Arguments won't do much to change them but feelings will. Alas, they denigrate feelings, to their detriment, to their humanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above in response to the following email:
"Art,
I hope you won't be upset that I sided with the man I defended you from a little bit. I find its good to confuse crazy people a bit to keep them from having a clear target. I find that creative views are not their strong point. I do think you may have exaggerated a bit in your claims but I suspect in general you are right on target. However I needed ammunition from Bruce to pour in against this "Debunking Primal Therapy" site, of which he had made me aware. Attacking the guy's position first allowed Bruce to gauge his response to me (and yes I hit a nerve somewhere there in the guy he responded and showed his condescending colors), this in turn will help guide Bruce's next move. The game is marketing and politics and between us I think we can make this "debunker" rue the day he started and in any case increase traffic to your website.
The guy accused me of not reading his blog then proceeded to say I was planning to do primal therapy without a "license" boy did that hope a shot for me to take. Along the lines of making a comparison of other "therapies" against Primal Therapy our attack is very much strengthened. I am additionally giving you the spot light as noble victims. I think I like this attacker he has given us more ammunition than we know what to do with, ha.
I even gave him another area of attack, which is myself. He can waste some of his banter and vitriolic out pourings of elitism on me, go ahead, ha.
Bruce and Peter are important allies for your cause and I try to see to any degree I can their positions even though I may differ somewhat. Like a charging bull, this guy can be distracted and misdirected and this takes away some of his steam.
I also like to play "good cop/ bad cop" with guys like this. I am confronting him and not in a very pc manner. This opens the door for Bruce to and Peter to be "nice guys" agreeing where they can with him and getting him to see new angles. This will make Bruce and Peter look great to those reading their posts, but allow me to make the stinging remarks that some may agree with and give him further troubles about. Lost in the chatter and confounded in getting out a clear message he may retreat for while or find it not worth his time, but this guy will regroup many times if I have understood his drive well. He seems a third liner to me, someone fled to his head, they get upset and they can be dogged as certain emotional skills on the second line are not well developed or connected. (Just my opinion, if I am wrong let me know.) First line pressure combined with third line planning and attack are things that remind me of wolves on the attack. They are one pointed and linear in their attack so distractions are hard for them to cope with if they are presented with what they experience as a threat. I had a psyche teacher and in my argument with him years ago about Primal Therapy I boxed him in until he let out a screech totally out of context his first line pressure exploding in a cry, he was a third liner in my opinion as well. He was fair and gave me an A in the class but the rest of the young folks saw and noted a "power struggle" between us, he had lost some of his air of authority. I retreated and we never discussed it much again, but I think he respected my position and the fact that instead of pushing it further I laid down my arguments and found entertainment and insight in what he said on other subjects giving him full credit.
I am writing a lot to let you see how I operate. This will allow you to see the contexts from which my view points arise and how I adapt them to fit the situation.
Always be frank with me and tell me when you disagree or wish me to change tactics. I will strive to comply. Obviously I have a good load of first line pressure myself but I try to keep it at bay or drain its force a bit (yes I know, a bit dangerous so I do that as much as possible as a result of third and second line feeling contexts).
When he presents horror stories which are available with any attempts at therapy, I have a personal come back that shows that his support of main line psychology is in fact oppressive. My life was pretty much cast in the trash by meddling social workers and main line but crazy psychologists who ran the Pine Rest facility in Grand Rapids. I will always be your ally Art, you were a voice of reason in a world that in my mind had "gone mad". They pretty much embittered me against the entire profession. They were a "Christian" facility and even pushed their particular brand of Christianity on us and had us all stand up feeling embarrassed in a Church we were made to go to in order to give praise to some "selfless" saint who served in their facility (which was more like a jail) and who was a member of that Church. The less training the "helpers" had the better we kids liked them and in fact the saner they seemed to be.
Any time you like just tell me "say this to this person" and I will do it. This will really throw them off guard as they will get a left hook from a pro expecting a more clumsy right from myself. How do you attack someone who seems to have flashes of highly educated arguments? Again it will throw him off guard, and pave the way for others to take advantage of any weaknesses in logic etc. that he might show as a result of too much pressure from the first line.
We will attack his positions from many sides and with many degrees, confuse him with it, pull him into agreements that will undo his conclusions in the end, until he makes mistakes that show people how crazy his attacks on you actually are.
I am not an unkind person but people like this stand in the way of others finding help and encourage suppressive forces in psychology that end up hurting people as they did me, when I was young and unable to defend myself well.
I hope this was useful to you, I am sorry that I can't write like Bruce or you can. I am just trying to help. Your France really paints well I love her one painting and will be looking for the others. I have been distracted by this attacker ever since Bruce informed me of this guy.
Have a really nice day guys
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All arguments are by definition head trips. Since the use of the head or intellect in argument relies on language, and because of the nature of words and language we can make anything mean anything we want it to mean, something I talked about in my book, but the Primal notion goes outside of this bound. A full-feeling experince, the psycho-physical sensation and the expression of it (emotion), is a whole other animal. Arguing the merits of Primal Therapy or it's efficacy doesn't touch on 'the nature of feelings' and therefore is outside the bounds of 'argument'. Provability, reason or logic are outside this realm.
ReplyDeleteFor me on reading "The Primal Scream" the introduction about Danny Wilson screaming on the floor of Art's office and coming out of it and saying:- 'I've done it, I don't know what, but I can feel" said it all, and explained fully, to me; something that had happened to me in a London clinic some years before. I was from there on in, a total convert. I knew I knew this new state of being and did not need reasoning, proof or otherwise. It was tantamount to a blind man suddenly being given sight. Arguing the pros and cons of sight becomes irrelevant.
I am not sure I am unique in this respect, but anyone experiencing this new state of being will never go back to any other understanding. That is not to say they will buy into the notion of "The Cure of Neurosis" but all discussion, arguments, talk, will never throw any doubt on this 'other state of being' (feeling-fullness). It is for this reason that I ask ANYONE to invalidate Primal Theory. To me it would be like asking someone in science to invalidate Galileo's notion that we are not the center of our solar system, let alone the universe. I do however find it pointless and frivolous to argue against 'the Primal Notion' that we are essentially a feeling creature and not a thinking, rational one.
Question;- .How does one get a non-feeling person to accept feeling-fullness? Or ... to get the blind to accept sight ... argument will never cut it. Jack
Its amazing what people will do to avoid feelings. I'm reading a book about Hitler where very detailed research and a psychological slant really explain why he did what he did. Its actually a real anti-climax becasue its seems a bit boring and predictable. All those people were tortured and died because one baby was unloved, negelected then beaten and humiliated and loaded with such a powerful force that it was acted out in such a brutal in humane way. Stalin and Mao were the same, hating anyone smarter than themselves.I always thought it seemd so childish in a way for a great powerful dictator to want to victimise people who wore glasses??? These "superstars" of madness actually seem so sad and pathetic and predictable the more you understand them.
ReplyDeleteI love feelings thay make life so enjoyable! I even like thinking (unlike Jack, my ambition is not to become a lemur loping thru the forest, or sit on a rock warming in the sun because I have a lizard brain). The mingling of the two is great.I like having a human brain.
Seems like everything boils down to either repression or expression. Feel or dont feel; speak or dont speak. Cant really do anyting in between. Even politics seems divided that way. Let gays express themselves; dont let them express themselves; allow criticism of the government; dont allow criticism. Let live; kill.
Anyway, just a thought.
Art,
ReplyDeleteYou say:"Acting smart makes you dumb".
Ah that is so true. So often I have tried to show people some new idea on something (that is actually really interesting...well, according to me) and their need to be the "already know it all" stops them from just "giving it up" and letting themselves listen - properly!
Result: They can't learn from you because they've got too much to prove. And they miss out on the inherent pleasure of just observing/discovering something new. In a sense, it's like they can't handle going back to high-school, so to speak.
--And yes, the "debunking primal therapy" guy is more than obviously neurotically driven. He writes like a lawyer desperately trying to prove his case, clinging to whatever unfounded, spurious bullshit he can weave out of his hyper-rationalising mind. And for all his tremendous effort he does in fact provide no 'debunking' evidence at all - it's all just empty assertions from what I have seen of it.
And he avoids the only real question: "Is is possible to integrate repressed pain via the [Janov described] primal"? (It's almost like the entire psychology world has an agenda to avoid that simple and potentially revolutionary question).
Art,
ReplyDeletewhile you're at it why not respond to Curtis Knecht's article on that site? He was a senior therapist at your early clinics who came to the conclusion PT was a Big Lie, i.e. it just doesn't work anywhere near as well as you claim it does. I know the site you refer to and think it is overblown, and that the site owner has massive problems, but Curtis Knecht is a different kettle of fish...
Erron
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThankyou very much Art for that because it gives me hope and courage. It's all true from my own experience.
I have been perplexed by the mendacity of certain types who seem distinctly able to reason any thesis with the reason from a different thesis. Anything can mean anything. The next day the opposite can be true too. . .
When I was driven completely by unfelt pain in my life I could be persuaded of anything and subsequently become an evangelist for any of it myself, and I did.
There's a description somewhere in past blog entries of a certain type and I have been wondering how they are like this. Eventually in the car yesterday I got to the question of does first line pressure always affect the third line through the second; or, can it affect the third directly?
My mother has alzheimers and when I focus on her disconnected and random diatribe and I read various theories of 'minor strokes in the brain' I think of short circuits where there shouldn't be. . .
Sometimes the reasoning of these particular types is like a form of dimentia.
The motive is important though isn't it? I mean politicians, lawyers and salesmen are doing this deliberately; whereas some people just can't help themselves and/or are totally unaware of the impact their chameleon shapeshifting is having. Quite often the word "it" can be used to shift responsibility to external things and events: "Oh! It got lost, It went missing, It's not working. . ." Actually the language of politics and some science is ideal for shifting responsibility away from the observer. The observer who (objectively) reputedly didn't do anything or have any impact but still talks with all the authority of a major player. . . and of-course when the neo-cortex becomes the instrument of a very frightened lizard then we are talking Major Player.
I really must go to work now, cut another six joints, I will make it thanks to a dose of Janovian courage.
Many thanks
PG.
Art: Thank you for this post. Now the anonymous debunker has a name! And now we know more about the psychological background of his obtrusive and stubborn behaviour. Bruce Wilson wrote in his January post on Primal Mind that…”it’s clear that something went terribly wrong with LP’s therapy and training.” This is certainly true and having read your blog post I would add: If someone starts therapy and training as condescending “know-it-all,” the whole thing is bound to be a complete flop!
ReplyDeleteI remember a “postface” of Jonathan Christie where he wrote about training in primal therapy: "We were trying to train therapists, and we learned that people who’d had therapy knew almost nothing about being therapists. This was a surprise, but it makes sense since one is far too distracted while undergoing therapy to take in the techniques being used. We made it possible for them to learn by becoming a clinic once more.” This gives us some good idea of what a long and difficult process it is to train a qualified primal therapist. Undergoing therapy oneself is a premise, but in no way is it an automatic qualification for working as a primal therapist. Primal therapist is a profession that requires several years of careful training. There is no shortcut to that professional aim. This may seem self-evident but obviously it isn’t. Only think of the many self-appointed “primal therapists” who practize all over the world. Instead of undergoing careful training at the Primal Center they tell their clients (for example) that they have “developed primal therapy further” or similar bullshit. At worst they create true torture chambers where people are seriously damaged (see: Deviations and Aberrations of Primal Therapy under “Becoming a Patient” on primaltherapy.com)
Mr. Patihis, the great debunker, again and again suggests on his website that – contrary to all people sympathizing with primal therapy - he possesses excellent critical thinking skills. Nevertheless he does not mind at all making an overzealous fool of himself who really pickes up every lousy piece of bullshit he stumbles over, for example, the excerpt about primal therapy from the book Therapy 101(Wood & Wood, 2008), where we are "informed" – put in a nutshell – that primal therapy is useless or even harmful catharsis (!!) which devours a lot of time, energy and money! In fact, this whole mini-article is nothing else but a ridiculous, superficial, unobjective, dilettante pseudo-paper simply spreading disinformation. To every person owning critical cogitation it should be clear that this is anything but a serious scientific essay!
Well, Art, I wish you a lot of success with the training program and with your current trainees. There may be alternatives for people who – from whatever reason – cannot do primal therapy or do not want it. However, for those ones who really want to undergo primal therapy, there must always be at least one place on the planet where they can go and work with a team of well trained primal therapists.
Erron: Look there are those who get so far and want to stop the pain and so they quit, and then they hurt and they blame the therapy. He was never a senior therapist. But way back then we did not know as much as we do now. We evolve. It is sad that others did not. And when someone spends their life trying to disprove us you know that they are on a mission; a flight from their own feelings; otherwise why spend half your life on it? AJ
ReplyDeleteMrSlatersParrotSpeaks: (unlike Jack, my ambition is not to become a lemur loping thru the forest, or sit on a rock warming in the sun because I have a lizard brain). The mingling of the two is great.I like having a human brain.)
ReplyDeleteMmmmm; someone mind reading me? The only retort to that is to suggest that until you are re-incarnated as a lizard, how are you to know the joys of sitting on a rock warming in the sun ........... as opposed the torture of being born human.
I used to say I loved smoking. Jack
I have to be one little voice amongst thousands and more ...thousands who have heard/read/whatever of PT and 100% instinctively just know that at last you have found the answer. At least and at last living the endless painful search is over. Pure and simple its a 'knowing'. And then the more you read the more you absolutely DO know. So many of us are where I am now - knowing, really knowing, and waiting to be able to go ahead and do the therapy. Or they were, now having been able to do it.
ReplyDeleteA debunking site? of Primal therapy? What a really silly waste of his/their time and effort. (Serious though, for those who because of it just might lose out on getting the therapy).
But as you say Art, and I now know enough to feel and see it in myself although I am driven to do it anyway....the act out. Or act in. Karen
This is an email comment:
ReplyDelete"This post is extremely childish and not what I’d expect from a therapist."
Another email comment:
ReplyDelete"Dear Art,
My name is Elizabeth and it just occured to me that now might be the perfect time to write to you and thank you for the work that you do and have done with such beauty and clarity for so many years.
Though we have never met, I did go through therapy with Jean Jenson in Ketchum, Idaho, for close to eight years, and because I did, I know what you say and write is true. You have done no less than save my life, and for that, I have no words. Other than a frail "thank you" which will have to suffice until the English language comes up with something better.
I am writing a memoir -- almost complete actually -- about my journey from neglected, abused child to joyful (most of the time) adult. I have quoted you in spots and want to make sure that is acceptable to you. I have recorded, as best possible, conversations with Jean during the course of my therapy. Obviously, eight years of therapy would be far too onerous to put to paper in this format, but I feel I've done it/her justice. She has given me permission to use her real name -- I would not do so otherwise. Privacy issues. Of course, I think she deserves to be given some kind of national award for what she's done for me. But she led me to you and we go on together. Though, again, we've never met.
Anyway, THANK YOU for giving my life back to me. I cherish each day."
My response to Elizabeth's email:
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of Ms Jenson but you are welcome. AJ
In the last few years I`ve read a lot of Dr Janov`s work,as well as those of most of his critics. I find Janov the most convincing, and if I could ,I would do his therapy...with some doubts due to these critics. But I would do it.And I have nothing against criticism of Primal, or Reich. We are free to express our views, even unfair and slanderous ones, unlike in EGYPT where some are dying these days for that right of free expression.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about Science here, and debate and controversy are unavoidable subjects when the truth is trying to be determined about anything. And the stakes are particularly high when it comes to truths that can help suffering neurotic people.
There are really some other fundamental issues here , like that of experience vs (?) or complementary to argumentation.More and more I try to shy away from argumentation about certain matters, not because I`m some Ghandian pacifist, but because most people are so stuck in their belief systems, including me, so, like, what`s the use of talking sometimes? But talk we must because not all argumentation is useless.In the emotional heat of argument sometimes, views change, and the truth about someting emerges.But if you are feeling a good piece of music or a poem, then there is nothing really to talk about except smile and dig it, preferably with someone whom you will bond with in a feeling way (that happenned to me last week, but it does not happen enough)
I personally often experience this obsessiveness Janov is talking about, getting back at some person or idea that gets under my skin, and really ,it`s exhausting after a while, and usually no one`s positions changes. Only some explosive experience can change a person, it seems. But I continue sometimes nevertheless , because I sure as hell am not free of neurotic compulsions, and because something positive sometimes emerges from arumentation, not often though.
I fear this is a little unclear but I have tried my best, and these are difficult issues.
Jack, kids like to build things. We are happiest when all parts of the brain are working properly.
ReplyDeleteIn November 15, 2010, 'On the Loss of Freedom' you wanted a reason for the evolution of the intellect. Did you read my reply?
Debunkers often write with ulterior motives. Their goal is not an intellectual one, or at least one objectively so. They often write to confused people and scare them away. They are a waste of time. Just ignore them. They often are desperate for attention as well and just want someone to listen.
ReplyDeleteI note another critic of Jack’s dislike of the intellect. Feeling is essential to correcting the damage done to humans. No dispute there. But to go so far as to say the intellect is pretty much useless and that logic or reasoning are impossible is just too far. Did evolution make a mistake? Was God drunk at the time? Whatever caused this to come about, it would seem to me the intellect is an extraordinary gift. It just seems that it takes a beating at times, when to me, it looks like the primal pain forces that actually hi-jack and derail the intellect.
But I do believe the intellect does have a good reason for existence, for whatever the cause was. I would ask this question of anyone. While PP seems to disrupt the intellect and reasoning, does it have to be that way? I suggest that it is this intellect that usually brings most to PT. If not, then there must be a part of our reptilian forces that opposes the other forces which typically oppose us facing our fears and pain.
The real problem as I see it, is that few ever use the intellect to put primal forces in their place, allowing itself to ponder without undue interference from those subversive forces. Primal forces are selfish with good reason, since they are a path to healing, but they often block their own healing by causing us to run or avoid feelings. It is a tough stand by the intellect that tells PP to shut up long enough so that one can give thought to this mystery going on inside.
Like Jack, I was amazed and hooked at the initial revelation in The Primal Scream. But it was actually an observation offered by Darwin, shown on PBSs in the early 80s that noted how animals and babies had far stronger emotions that adult humans. I noted how many people often seemed flat-line or almost dead or void of emotion. When I saw the Primal Scream in a used book store in 86, it reminded me of those primal emotions of babies and animals. I bought the book, having a hunch that some good answers would likely be found in it.
ReplyDeleteBut I buy lots of books and often don’t get around to some for a couple years or so. But then there was a PBS special on John Lennon and it mentioned a therapy but nothing specific. It showed the book so fast that you could not see what it was. We had just gotten a VCR and I tried the frame by frame. There it was. The Primal Scream. I had that! So it was just a few months later when I said, it is time to read this. It was probably about april 87.
So for me, it was intuition and intellect together that perceived the direction and truth of PP and PT. but more so the intellect. I think the intellect can become very strong. Art warns this can get in the way and I can see that is possible. But I am not convinced that the intellect cannot give up control and let feelings come up. But I do believe a therapist will be needed to help. Feelings are not small, insignificant or easily directed. It takes help in most cases, I suspect.
But until one has circumstances that allow relocation to Cali, one needs anything they can use to help maintain order in the mind till such time as feelings can be allowed to come up. Till then, it seems to me that the intellect is the next best friend you can have. It beats drugs, reckless sex, and lots of other vices. It can still function, in spite of primal forces, if we build it strong. Most people never bother to exercise control of their minds and put a damper on feelings while trying to reason things out.
But I maintain that recognizing PT is not rocket science or brain surgery. It is intuitive, obvious, logical, reasonable and explains all those many mysteries about human behavior, that otherwise seemed so irrational.
She has worked with Ingeborg Bosch to develop PRI,based on primaltherapy.
ReplyDeleteI think she,Ingeborg,is to formal and gives to less freedom.
http://www.pastrealityintegration.com/default.asp
An email comment:
ReplyDelete"Dear Dr. Janov,
I really welcomed your message re: the act out because I've been confused about those who are talking against primal therapy.
One thing I know that keeps people away, however, is your view regarding God. Is there any way that you can admit that there might be a "higher power"? There are many sick, neurotic people with their convoluted reasons for believing in God, and then there are the rest of us. Have you never even had a doubt regarding your position on this?"
And my response to it:
ReplyDeleteI don't know why my beliefs which are personal should dissuade anyone from our therapy which is objective and scientific. Mary, I have never proselyted against religion. I do not care what or how people believe. My book Beyond Belief is being bought by a U.S publisher and should be out in a few months. you can see for yourself. We have to learn that we are the higher power and can control our lives and our destiny. Otherwise, we are implicitly saying we are powerless to change our lives and must rely on outside of ourselves to get better. But you have never seen me write against religion. Art Janov
Richard: Never saw it art janov
ReplyDeleteapollo: You know it may be rocket science, after all. It takes a very long time to really learn it precisely because one has to have great internal access in order t know what to do next with patient. After 43 years of primal I still learn every day about it. so much so that my publisher for the book coming out june 1 has forbid me to add any new science to it. And what is amazing is that every day there is new science to add to it; he finally let me add a chapter on the imprint and how it is laid down and how it works on a molecular level, and I sneaked in a new bit of information on Alzheimers. But I could easily write a new book on the new science. art janov
ReplyDeleteI am not the above Paul
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be several people on this blog who use the name ´Paul´ and that might give confusion.
ReplyDeleteFor that reason I changed my name.
Paul NL (Netherlands)
With respect to the above e-mail comment by someone concerned that many people are kept away from Primal because of Dr Janov's views on God: While Dr Janov has never written against religion, he has certainly explained the compensatory role of unreal belief systems, whether religious or philosophical, in a person's neurotic structure (see "Ideas as Opiates" , in particular, in his great "Prisoners of Pain").But, look , maybe he is wrong. Aren't there enough other persuasive arguments as to effectiveness and truth of this therapy? In his books, there are no arguments to dissuade people from religion or belief in any "Higher Power", in so far as I can tell; it would be useless anyway to argue with a beleiver.Perhaps this concerned person would lose or retain their belief in God if he or she did the therapy, but would he or she not be better off in general , no matter what the changes or not in belief? May I also suggest to this person the book "The Murder of Christ" (about Jesus) by the brilliant post-Freudian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, that might help. I've never met a truly humane scientist, artist, or philosopher who did not have a great respect for the human person, Jesus.
ReplyDeleteMarco
Hi,
ReplyDeletethis is regarding Arts' last comments on religion, God and Science.
There is a middle eastern traditions which invests in work on three brains through 4 successive stages and deaths of selves (no surprise there); eventually one becomes completely 'anhialated'. . . From this same body of knowledge and tradition it is said that God does not dwell on Earth because it's too dense here.
Given the long and diverse traditions of understanding us humans as three brained beings it should come as no surprise that eventually someone would find a way to access and cure body knowledge. Until Primal it would appear that all other attentions to the body brain have been palliatives. . . I don't know, what do you all think, or should I say feel, or do I mean sense?
There is an old metaphore for the human psyche as a "three legged stool" each brain being one of the legs. Each of us has a leg too short and/or two legs too long. The work to be done is to level up the stool.
It seems to me that Primal is up against all of these ancient traditions as well as most of the modern ones because it calls to attention a new cure for our self preservation and existence. Ok, there are many other claims. . .
Paul G.
Richard: I never wanted a reason for the evolution of the intellect. In my book (sorry to be flogging this horse again), but I explained why I CONJECTURED the intellect developed ... it needed more than a couple of paragraphs to do so. It was IMO a mechanism to kill Primal Pain. So good is this 'painkiller' (act-out) that we've hung onto it with our (metaphorical) finger nails ever since ... it's so, so effective. If I remember I was asking you, YOUR reason for the evolution of the intellect, since you posed there must have been a reason. To use the intellect to prove the validity (or naturalness) of the intellect, is tantamount to trying to disappear up our own ass-holes.
ReplyDeleteIn my own naive conceited way I wrote the book for us laymen, to simply and briefly layout the Primal Notion. My analogy; to be the Galileo simplifying Copernicus for the Primal notion. I obviously didn't succeed cos no-one (it seems, other than Art) even read it, let alone had some understanding of what I was trying to say. "C'est la vie".
Jack
As an after thought I can't help adding that what Art is saying, "we are the higher power" is what all religions and philosophies have been saying for millenia.
ReplyDeleteWe might be compelled to discover who we really are as fragments of a arger whole. Who decides on this journey, why?
Evolution really is the key because our intellects allows us the power of self referal and self reflection and therefore self learning. If the intellect is in any way distorted in its' self referal and self reflecting modus then any trajectory of action "will" be "off the mark". We won't see ourselves as we are but "through a glass darkly". (Or any-one else).
From my limited experience of Primal I see a way to correct the over-all correllation between the three brains as a permanent cure, ok this obviously takes decades, a life time for many of us but so do all other ways. . . and they're just palliatives right?
It's easy to talk about 'ways' as if they were either an end in themselves or a route to some other dimension or reality somewhere else. Either / Or.
But actually ways bring us here, now. That's what the first part of Arts' most recent blog is saying and it's true. Unfelt pressures will distort who we are. Feel now and be real now, it's an old hackneyed catch phrase but absolutely true.
Lastly, I know thoughts like these can't change my first line pain but they sure do help to de-construct my illusions. Without my illusions I am more ready to feel, more ready to empathise with others and more able to bear pain in adverse situations.
Thanks
Paul G.
Art,
ReplyDeleteIt’s both dismissive and untrue to say Curtis Knecht spent the last 40 years debunking PT. He wrote that one article to clear his head about what he’d experienced after 8 years in therapy as patient and therapist, and then got on with his life. I’m sure he’d say you’re the one who’s been banging on about the same thing for the last 40 years. To paraphrase: I am evolved, he is evolving because he agrees with me, they are dead and unfeeling because they do not? I hope you can see the point.
At any rate you also make the point that “way back then we did not know as much as we do now.” But you say this every few years, or even more frequently. Why would anyone accept your invitation to spend several years (and possibly every cent they have) becoming a therapist, only to read a few years after ‘graduation’ that what they learnt is now dangerously passé, and they need more training? At that rate, the applicability of PT on a wide scale that you and others hanker after is never likely to happen.
I’m frustrated because this year I will finally have the means to support myself anywhere in the world, and I would like to spend the last years of my life more productively than I have up to date. Studying PT is the only thing I really keep coming back to every time I think about this dilemma, but the constant changes worry me. Maybe it’s just my need for consistency, but I really question the use of something that alters even as you look at it.
I should probably have been a religious fascist of some sort, need something concrete to believe in. But that doesn’t work either, so sad about God...
Erron
Arthur, I have no doubt there is far more to learn, particularly from the point of treating people. But I don't have to worry about that. I don't think any of us ever stops learning.
ReplyDeleteThe book sounds very good. I haven't finished the 2007 book yet ;-) Right now I got other things on my plate. But I find new science all the time. New and obscured stuff, too. After all, military science is 30 to 50 years ahead of public or commercial science. Its fun trying to 2nd guess them.
But I would say that Primal basics are pretty obvious. there is no good excuse for many academics to ignore or deny it. Arthur, maybe you should put your wife to work writing as well, or some option near to that ;-)
But I definitely look forward to the new stuff. Biology and physiology and life extension have also made impressive gains. It never ends and why should it, right? Thanks.
Erron: Hey You know why I say it is always changing? cause it is. I subscribe to every science journal in the U.S. and England plus some in France. I read and write every day to try to perfection this therapy. I have never rested on my laurels but done everything to help make it as good as it can get. AJ
ReplyDeleteapollo: Hey you donno? France Janov is the clinical and administrative director of the primal center for many years. She teaches how to do it. AJ
ReplyDeleteHi Apollo.
ReplyDelete"Biology and physiology and life extension have also made impressive gains. It never ends and why should it, right?"
Axolotls (salamanders that never reach adulthood) are quite happy to have their entire eyes and large portions of their brains removed and replaced with the eyes and brains of other axolotls. The surgery is crude, but the axolotl's natural healing ability ensures that errors are corrected, and organs are restored to full functionality. The animal is essentially stuck in the fetal development stage; the stage when stem cells respond to a genetic map of the body. An entire leg can be removed and it will grow back in perfect detail (but slightly smaller). (Axolotl owners: please don't do surgery on yours).
There is a wealth of information to be gained from stem cell research and the regenerative power of the genetic blueprint. Human immortality may be achieved within the next hundred years if we can agree on issues of morality.
My advice to anyone who wants to live forever: get Dr. Janov's Primal Therapy as soon as possible so that you will live a long time. Register to have your body preserved at Alcor in Arizona when you die. It is important to be there just before you die. Their preservation methods insure minimal cell damage in the brain.
Damaged cells can be restored or replaced in the future. THEIR research is moving ahead like a freight train because they ride on the back of the extensive research in organ transplantation.
This is not science fiction. Art, I know you would rather die, but that's an ignorant point of view. You should stick around for the future. Imagine living without pain in your throat.
that's all I want to say. I won't talk about this topic any more.
Erron: "... but the constant changes worry me. Maybe it’s just my need for consistency, but I really question the use of something that alters even as you look at it." My feeling is that you are looking at the wrong factor. If in fact you wanted to train to be a therapist then yes the changes are ever ongoing as with the medical profession in general, where most professionals go back and do some ongoing training, but that is not what I gather you are really talking about. If you are interested only in doing the therapy then the developments in training are not relevant. Primal theory does not alter and the subjective experience of the therapy is very individual, so you should have nothing to worry about. The consistency is in the theory, if that is what you feel you must have. Jack
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah, I guess that might take up some time. Maybe some of your therapists? So much to do and so little to do it with. I know the feeling.
ReplyDeleteTherapies with stem cells are around for a long time.I had celltherapy in 1973 (embryonic stem cells from lams)and that was very positive.The idea is that injected stem cells find their way in the body to find places where repair is needed.
ReplyDeleteA lot of scientific research have been done back then but it has been totally ignored by mainstream science.Now the scientists are doing all the science over again and in fact snatch the whole concept.(they offcourse want their own Nobelprize)
Is nt the intellect a problem solving device? I thought the problem was pain in all its forms. So because of pain (or maybe in order to maximze pleasure)the brain set about figuring out ways to avoid pain even to the extent that eventually weve even solved how to get rid of old pains from our past(We actually know whose intellect actually finally figured it out - amazing). Now of course the intellect can be hijacked by Pain but does that mean its a bad thing? Just because my sex drive can be hijacked doesnt mean sex is bad.
ReplyDeletePrimal will never get rid of pain. Rocks will still fall on people and leave orphans, floods will still drown the innocent. But now we have a way to feel our pain and go on and not prolong suffering
I see that cell therapy is probably not available in the USA.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.icbr.com/
Here an article about Paul Niehans who discovered it in 1931.
In books nowadays on stem cells this man is totally ignored.
http://www.icbr.com/icbr.htm
Jack, in November you were asserting that the intellect has been neurotic from the moment it began to evolve. You say that it's only purpose is to enable us to survive without feeling. This is why thoughts, no matter how logical, will always lead to an unfeelingful solution.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the world's painful problems can never be solved by a machine that has been designed to avoid pain.
(Frank has also expressed this point). You go on to say: If we use our feelings, there will be no problems in the first place.
______________
I am listening and understand your point. You are not listening.
You challenged everyone to present an alternative theory to explain the evolution of the intellect. I gave you one because I was trying to show you how anything is possible. You can't base your entire argument on a theory that doesn't fit with real-world observations.
Children get pleasure from designing tree-houses because they are neurotic? We should encourage our children to stay away from that damned neurotic intellect?
I know you don't mean that. Like Galileo, your assertions appear ridiculous, but only because you oversimplify.
I enjoy your writing style but I think it needs to be more scientific. Read Primal Healing chapter five.
(now who's conceited?)
and by the way, Art, I think I saw Jack's silly theory in Primal Healing. It's what I call a "useless theory". Don't use it again.
Thanks Jack, nice input...
ReplyDeletePaul NL: I have known about his work for 40 years. art janov
ReplyDeleteRichard: a vos ordres, monsieur.
ReplyDeleteArt, i dig your last comment, in french; shows a nice sense of humor on your part...allez!
ReplyDeletenelson
Richard: We're getting into semantics here, but I did not ASSERT that the intellect ... I conjectured upon the beginnings (evolution) of thinking. In essence I don't actually know; so I can only postulate/conjecture. Using the word 'evolve' in the context that I wrote it and then inferring (as I suspect you are doing) evolution in it's general sense makes it sound like something else.
ReplyDeleteThe, so called, intellect, is an outgrowth (development) of thinking ... IMO. If indeed you did propose another reason why the intellect developed, then I missed it completely. So maybe you are right I was not listening/reading and you're sure on target suggesting I am conceited ... and arrogant to boot.
However, be careful that the kettle is not calling the frying pan 'black'. You saying:- "We should encourage our children to stay away from that damned neurotic intellect", is fine, provided that we first define the difference between 'neurotic intellect' and 'non-neurotic intellect'. That statement, by my standard, is "Rovian" logic. (in my book I call that; Lazy Dog Syndrome). I would rather say;- if we left our children to feel (a natural born faculty, which has it's beginnings in the womb) then the child would be able to know it's own mind ... without adult indoctrination ... however wise.
Another inference might be that you are suggesting Art took my (silly) theory. I took Art's theory (not the other way round) and personally I tend to keep away from creating theories and try to stick to just conjecturing. If you will leave me an email address I will get back to you with a free e-copy of my book, only 129 pages), and I would welcome any and all your comments via email between us. Jack
Some good posts here recently. Richard, you seem to know quite a bit about life extension yourself. Very cool! Some good comments, too.
ReplyDeleteI note Mr. Slater makes some sense. But here is the importance of the intellect as I see it.
Primal pain is always scrambling our heads and making fools of us, seemingly keeping us in the dark. the remarkable thing about advanced science and learning is that it is almost counter-intuitive. And what I mean by that is that if we follow the evidence by instruments, since the eyes can be deceived, and we follow those readings wherever they take us, we often end up down a road that seems almost impossible to be and yet we can see no other possibility.
Sherlock Holmes (AC Doyle) once said, when your remove the impossible, what ever is left, however improbable, is the truth.
I see PT and PP that way. Remove the impossibles, and you are left with only one conclusion. PT is a fact. It may be intuition that verifies it for you, but for many, it is the path of evidence that determines it.
So for more people to find PT, it is good if we can help them along that path of evidence, which is always being interfered with by PP causing disruptions from within. The intellect is a friend, not an enemy. It can still hurt us if it is manipulated by PP. But it can also help us overcome or get past PP to discern the value and certainty of PT.
An my answer :
ReplyDeleteI think you know the answer to your question, and look at your progress; there is the proof. I am so glad you are doing well. Love art
An email comment:
ReplyDelete"You're better than a guru any day of the week. I just wanted you to know that you are sometimes helping people without ever knowing it. I'm not asking for anything, I just wanted you to know."
Jack, I did propose / postulate / assert / conjecture upon another reason why the intellect developed. I will paste it here for your convenience. Art, the theory inventor, has read it and is not too stubborn to see some logic in it.
ReplyDeleteI can see you are starting to understand my point. The intellect can be non-neurotic, and I think you should include that point in your well-written arguments.
____________
here's my theory:
Hordes of not-very-hairy primates were thriving when the earth was very hot. But as the earth started to cool, most of them died because their instincts did not align with their environment. However, there was one group of hot-weather primates who began searching for the remains of dead animals. They began using the animals' furry hides to keep warm. They were not following their hot-weather instincts. They were the first thinkers.
Their intellect was nothing more than a teeny weeny mutation in the cortex...far too small to articulate false beliefs. This tiny intellect was dominated by the force of the limbic system. But the intellect grew bigger because of the ADAPTIVE advantages it provided. This clever primate did not specialise in any particular survival strategy other than adaptation. And so the intellect grew bigger and bigger. Eventually it became big enough to accommodate the complex thoughts necessary to generate and maintain false beliefs.
____________
thanks for offering me your e-book. I'd like to read it when I have the time.
my email: richardatkin@windowslive.com
What I've written exceeds the allowable character limit, so I'm posting twice back-to-back:
ReplyDeleteMy wife was telling me last night about some postings she had been reading in Art’s blog archive regarding Curtis Knecht, a former therapist at the Primal Institute I knew and worked with a little bit many, many years ago. The back and forth she described got me thinking.
Any theory is always just a map of the territory, not the territory itself. But it is natural that over time, assuming a scientific approach and earnest persistence, more becomes known and theory and practice evolve—the map becomes more precise and accurate.
What I marvel at is how Art, France and the folks at the Primal Center have persevered. It’s one thing to retain a steadfast focus in pursuing theoretical knowledge and a practice, it becomes quite another when the pursuit also entails feeling one’s own pain. Our brains are amazing globs of tissue and particularly adept at keeping us from feeling pain, regardless of how much we have already felt and integrated. And close interpersonal relationships, social relations and institutions often, if not usually, reinforce, if not demand, the tendency. It is truly marvelous that Art and a cadre of people have continued to go deeper.
I was a patient at the original Primal Institute in the 1970’s and 80’s, and watched many of even the most senior staff get stuck one way or another. And I have gotten quite stuck myself, wasted years and caused others I love deep pain as a consequence—and probably shortened my life some as well.
So I have often wondered about the characteristics and conditions, both personal and collective, which give rise to continuing to go deeper, feel more of one’s pain, and in the case of theory and therapy as well as personally, continue to evolve. It’s speculation, but considered speculation, that key elements in the ongoing evolution of Primal Therapy initially at the Primal Institute and subsequently at the Primal Center come from Art’s Weltanschauung, which one gleans from his writings and Primal Therapy in practice (at least as he has practiced it). It is materialist dialectic in nature and strongly scientific in bias.
And so one of the key elements it seems to me has been an abiding appreciation of the dialectic, and for this discussion in particular the dialectic of theory and practice (i.e., the interpenetration of the two, one becoming the other and in turn again becoming the other). Sounds easy: discovery and practice become theory that in turn generates more discovery and evolution in practice. It’s not. What is easy is for theory to crystallize into a filter that ignores or reshapes (actually, misshapes) new information and hinders the development of practice (as brilliantly elaborated by Thomas Kuhn in his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and who wryly observed we often have no recourse but to wait for the old guard to die off for new ideas to take hold, so strongly does the old guard cling to its theories in spite of mountains of anomalous data). Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And as with our personal belief systems, undoubtedly old pain and feelings play a central role in theoretical petrifaction in the sciences, despite the typical protestations of open-mindedness, objectivity and truth seeking.
ReplyDeleteAnd so it goes that it’s easy to collectively get stuck. I recall Art’s insisting back in the 70’s the staff have diversity (and I don’t mean the politically correct token diversity of appearances). I don’t know if he or France still insist on that, but I imagine they have remained true to the principle and I believe that genuine diversity makes a real difference. It helps mitigate groupthink and getting collectively stuck. My experience, for example, is that the staff at the old Primal Institute devolved into a clique of sameness after Art and Michael Holden dissociated from it, one that has become quite stagnant. Just check out the website—even the pictures of the managing staff are decades old. And the therapy there suffers for it, as my therapy and that of others I knew and know attest. That’s not necessarily to say the people there aren’t well meaning, or don’t really care, or that one can’t get some real help there. I am saying that the therapy there only goes so far, and one will get bad therapy masquerading as good at some point, and no acknowledgement of that nor attempt to remedy. The clique’s petrified self-interest and power structure supersedes. And other splinter groups I have known seem to suffer the same fate—stuck in some place or another eventually. And sometimes, tragically, it takes bizarre and dangerous turns.
And so another very key element has been the continual grounding of Primal Theory and Therapy in neuropsychology, cellular biology, physiology, biochemistry—in a word, science. Michael Holden’s contributions were immense. But Art’s perpetual insistence on that continual grounding has been the keystone. That’s another element one doesn’t see much of in splinter or mock primal therapy efforts, and one that helps keep theory and therapy evolving, in part because of those fields’ own momentum and evolution.
And so at the Janov Primal Center, Primal Therapy is a science. But it is also quite an art…pun fully intended, for key elements of its continuing evolution and power derive from, in a word, Art. And so, with love, thank you Art for being you.