Epigenetics and Primal Therapy: The Cure for Neurosis (Part 19/20)

Conclusion

Without a theory of pain, how could we ever get to the bottom of cancer, heart disease, migraines and high blood pressure? If we have no theory of brainstem trauma, we will never understand it. And if we have no such theory, then we are not keeping up with psychologic/brain science.

I believe we can reverse some of it in our therapy, but I also believe that the earlier and stronger the imprint the more difficult time we will have to reverse it. Once cells take on their imprint, they often cannot be changed readily; their identity remains unshakeable. That’s because the imprint is rock solid, engraved even into microscopic cells that do not shed their identity easily. The evolution of the genes has been rerouted. Epigenetics reigns. That is crucial; experience cannot change it. That is why we cannot love neurosis away or exhort it to change, or plead and beg for it does something “healthy.” There is no way out of the biologic fact of the critical period, the time and space where love must be received or forever more becomes an imprint.

I have written about the irreversibility of early trauma, gestation and birth. The worst-case scenario is a traumatic birth followed by a loveless childhood later on. That compounding can be a person’s undoing. It sets up insurmountable emotional problems that create damaged individuals. But having said that there is some hope. A certain level of trauma in-utero and at birth can be ameliorated by mitigating factors, namely plenty of early love. It never erases those traumatic imprints, but it does hold them at bay. I think that part of a good childhood can block the effects of first line early pain. Damage to the kidneys during gestation will not be reversed by later love but it may not flower into serious symptoms. Very early traumas are never altered or diluted by later love, never mitigated by hugs and kisses, but they do not have the reach, the upper level access, they would have had without all that infancy love. To be clear; love during or near the imprinting time of the sensory window (when needs are importuning) can alleviate pain. For example, after a terrible birth, hugging and kissing a lot can minimize the damage. The same hugs six years later will not have that effect. That is why a father who leaves home for years and comes back needing acceptance will not get it. The pain is installed and working in the child. The child wants to love but the pain is blocking him.

As we have seen, a nervous mother leaves a predisposition to fear in the offspring, just as a depressed mother leaves a base of depression in her baby. Whether it becomes overt depends on those later events and traumas. I personally believe that lots of love and healthy living in the very young child can abate these deleterious effects. In fact, premature babies who were hugged and caressed a lot went home earlier than those babies not touched as much. Those early kisses count a lot and help shape personality, a loving and warm person versus a standoffish one. This is especially true for those babies who were taken from institutions. They are greatly in need of love and reassurance early on. If they don’t get it, it can be somewhat irreversible; that is, there may be a point where love can no longer make a great difference. The damage is done and it is pretty well fixed. This is the research we will embark on in the near future. Is there a point in time when love cannot reverse previous damage?