I think it is normal to think about death and the end of our being. But there are those obsessed with it. Why? Because their system is already obsessed with it in the sense that death is an imprint that the body has always been dealing with. Let me explain.
Many of us come close to death at birth or before. The massive anesthesia given to a 130 pound mother is overwhelming for a 6 pound newborn. All of his systems are shut down and death lurks. Even though the baby cannot articulate it the system does in its own way. And later when we are capable of articulation we are still obsessed but now we give it a name and an idea. The death experience is ever present and does not go away because it is an imprint that cannot be erased. In infancy and childhood that imprint can move the child constantly in hyperactivity; then later in attention deficit problems, then still later a preoccupation with death. Enter religion. Its first task is to take care of death. It provides an ideology and a belief that diminishes the threat; it takes the place of the obsession. Now there is a new obsession--God. That idea suffocates the death fear for a time—until the next prayer. The belief has to be strong and persistant to keep the real fear at bay.
Those who obsess about it have in general weak gating systems; that is, the amount of early pain is so high that the gates have always been faulty. Death lurks constantly in the background and foreground. It is immediate and the person thinks he is going to die NOW! That means the memory is up on top just close to conscious/ awareness. Pills that suppress the pain do help and lower the belief system. Alcohol the same. But the appointment in Summara won’t go away. You know the story. The man hears that death is coming to his village and so he escapes to Sumarra only to learn that death has changed his itinerary and will come to Sumarra. There is no escape— because we cannot escape the imprint. It is real and that is what makes imminent death real.
Art, somewhere in this blog site (i can't find it) i think you said "sometimes a person can primal unconsciously".
ReplyDeletethat would be an unfelt primal, and the primaller would have no memory of the primal. do you understand the definition of unconsciousness? when a person is unconscious, he is unable to feel or perceive anything at all. he is effectively dead.
was it just a mistake in your wording?
i am interested in the purpose of consciousness. it seems to be necessary for healing.
but while my testicle was being sewn to my scrotum (ouch?) i was totally unconscious. or was i?
is it possible for surgery to be psychologically traumatic?
my mother became half-awake and remained that way through most of her operation (anaesthetist's error apparently). she said it was hell.
Richard: I never remember saying something like that. Are you sure you got it right? Patients who are advanced have relived surgery. My best description of all this is found in Primal Healing, consciousness versus awareness. you need to be consciously aware to primal. art janov
ReplyDeleteArt, a long time ago I questioned you about your theory of how the different parts of the brain connect to form the type of consciousness that is necessary to primal. It seems to me that you are saying the lower feeling centres must connect to the right cortex and across to the left cortex in order for a deep feeling to become a fully conscious experience. i got confused because i thought you were talking about the 3rd line, 2nd line, and 1st line, and how they all interpret a feeling at different stages of a primal.....with the left cortex being the final participant (insights) after the reliving has occurred.
ReplyDeleteyou suggested i read a certain author to find out how the brain works. i apologise...i didn't take note. can you please give me his name again?
here's an excerpt from
ReplyDeleteSunday, February 6, 2011
More on the Imprint
"The assumption by some researchers is that the process of methylation may be altered. And that possibly can be done when the patient goes back to the neurophysiologic state when the imprint occurred. It can mean changing the imprint and perhaps normalization of the cell. In other words, once that mark is made on the cell we are stressed for life until, and only until, that mark/event is revisit and relived. And it can be relived unconsciously; it can be re-experienced without a specific awareness of it once we are locked into the memory circuit."
this is what you meant:
trauma may cause the cells to methylate - a crude and permanent defence.
during a reliving, the patient is not aware that his cells are de-methylating (returning to their de-repressed state), but he does feel the pain that was recorded while the original trauma was blocked from consciousness.
now listen Art. everyone knows that a patient cannot make scientific observations while primalling. you didn't need to make the point about "no awareness of changes in cells". you gave an unnecessary red herring to a person who doesn't read carefully.
your books are full of red herrings. intellectuals don't read carefully.
i can't re-write your explanations until i understand them. i might be able to dumb it down even further.
Richard:
ReplyDeleteI have no idea now of whom I recommended. so let me think on it. art
Sorry that is why I need another editor. I write for the public but sometimes I get carried away by the science of it. art
ReplyDelete