NOTES 12th August 2021.
At the very centre of our dialogue
The word phantasy ripples through the air
(with a ph)
Idea condensing now into form,
Professor Couliano slumped,
a single shot
through the head.
Metaphor, within a metaphor within a...
bullet.
That extinguished once and for all
the flame of his life.
Lots of bullet songs in my life right now:
Filter - 'Hey man, nice shot'.
Covenant - 'Time is like a Bullet'.
Puscifer - Bullet train to Iowa... "Going to be a while before we hit the ground"
And this connection that I'm imagining,
or longing for,
or creating,
or destroying?
When the waves come
I am in bliss.
The session.
There is a picture on his wall. I go over and take a good look.
It is Mediaeval,
A fayre or market, a festival day?
And in the picture there is a big, stripy box
Full of people!
Are they trapped?
There is a ladder inside this rather large box,
Has someone placed it there so they can escape?
No, that interpretation doesn’t seem right.
I’m confused.
I ask:
He continues - "Now the thing about idealisation - this is a really important process for the child. Now what will happen when a child can't go through that, if the child feels 'my parents don't look after me' there is no where that the parents can fall from, what very often happens is the person ends up having really unrealistic relationships with people because they end up idealising all kinds of other people who of course, can't bear it. They can't bear it in literally two ways, it can be 'get away from me, who are you turning me into?' a full rejection. Or they bear it in a more abstract way, but nobody can be idealised for two long. We are all fallible people therefore what tends to happen is they have not gone through this important developmental process then there is this boom and bust of idealising people as perfect, and then feeling completely crestfallen and 'god, the world is this rubbish' so they go and idealise somebody else. And so the idea is that they can go through that process with the therapist - the therapist will inevitably have a fall and they are in an environment where they can talk about it in a much more healthy way in which they can understand and therefore break the cycle. Does all that make sense?"
And I'm off again, scattering this sensible, coherent image as if it is mercury. An explanation is only that. There are many. They need to be criticized, or rather they need to be taken to bits and checked out. But Kohut's theory and the common sense explanations deriving from developmental theory are, I think, an integral part of Kit's identity. So I don't say to him that I've been idealized, it made me feel safe. It is strange to be a muse, and it can be frustrating. It can also be incredibly powerful! And it makes sense to idealize someone when you need to. And sure, it hurts when they aren't the one, it hurts more when they decide that you are no longer the one! Or you could find perfect love with your twin-flame, if there really are twin-flames. And they die in a car crash, or waste away slowly with some horrible disease. Or, more likely they were never the one. But it was lovely when they were! Or you could negotiate and navigate with a good friend into something that remains blissful and exciting for years. I was actually 'swept off my feet by a tall, dark and handsome man' (my husband looked like Frank Zappa!) despite my rejection of all inner and outer Princess stereotypes! And I think my husband really did his best to be loyal to me, and it was wonderful while he idealized me! But I'm also sure that he enjoyed finding others to idealize - and I'm beginning to wonder how many times he had done this - it was no doubt very exciting and a lot of fun for him.
But being idealised didn't cause me to want to push him away. I didn't worry about failing to meet his expectations.
Go figure!
I've seen the most unlikely of relationships work beautifully.
I don't have a concept of perfect love.
Love is, itself, perfect.
But me...do I idealize?
I wish I could say that Kit was 'just another one' of many people I've idealized. But no, I love in a very deep and consistent way, I know that I don't undo love easily, I don't just move on. I honestly do not see Kit as perfect...he's just energetic and intelligent, god damn it!
But anyway yes, I get your message Kit!
He says - "I think the bottom line is not saying, which of these six categories' does this person fit into - a bit of danger in that - but just really focusing on, I'm listening for the clues, what does this person need from me, what's missing that they now need me to fulfil. And some of that you can do, and some of it you are just not a person who can do that. Some of it can't be done in therapy anyway, and they need to identify it for themselves and do it outside of therapy. But all of that is important to identify I think"
I am not going to talk about Kohut!
But is all this him telling me that he thinks that I idealize him?
The picture of the people in the box, the travelling theatre is still in my mind and I am horrified that he would diagnose someone from how they responded to a picture. Not going to go there! I stay with the time-frame suggested by the painting, I am telling him that I see so much of psychotherapy as a rewrite of mediaeval concepts, Neoplatonism - the idea of pneuma and soul. And people have and always will beleive so many different things - and so we get then into epistemology, and as I'm Popperian - seeking refutations to move us forward - he sees this as being contrary.
So ~I switch subject, I'm explaining my research again and my view that it is important to consider the narratives people create to explain what has happened - and how tragic stories transform with alternative narratives - and my question, where does this fit in with how post traumatic growth takes place.
He says - "I'm not sure everybody gets to post traumatic growth...."
I say - 'that's why this research is interesting"'
Even if it was only one person ever - that would make it even more intresting!
He - "Or would even couch it in those terms, of learning a lesson from it"
Clearly he is annoyed. I've not agreed with him, and I am persisting in spouting theories that he seems to believe are rubbish. What is behind this, what is behind his despair? That is something I would love to know!
And it is sad that he doesn't seem to hear that I reject all monomyths - I don't think his ideas are wrong, only that they don't go far enough! And if I had permission to talk with him about how he feels in this moment I would say, 'something about the way you speak, gives me the impression that the depth and power of trauma you have experienced is being missed out in how I speak about trauma?
I don't say that.
Talking about his emotions isn't allowed in this room.
I say instead - "These are things people do say about overwhelming experience, but people do find a way out and they look back and say that the experience has connected them with the rest of humanity rather than isolating them"
He replies - "Ah well there's a key thing with grief, you mentioned before the re-organisation of our internal furniture, if you will. And that's really what grief is. The world was like this and I knew how it worked, something has been taken away from me , or I've lost my job, or I've split up from my partner ...somethings end and we are glad, but it would be hard to imagine someone saying 'I'm glad I don't have my left leg anymore even if the amputation saved their life, they would still wish they had got their leg, so it's reconstitution..."
And he's telling me about Kubler Ross. Completely missing the point - because my research is about that period of heightened awareness, times when the writing really appears on the wall. And how experiences such as those, catalyse something new.
I talk about when he asked me if I recognized my denial.
Underneath this subject is my aim - I want him to understand my view that hearing what people say, and meshing with their belief system is fundamental to their healing...it isn't about us, it isn't about 'truth' it is about their process!
And to do this a therapist has learnt how to let go of all and every theory - nothing matters more at any moment than my ability to respect and to honour someone else's truth. Regardless of the TRUTH, the place to start is where they are...then traditional pathologizing concepts dissolve. I see those concepts (and diagnosis) as cruel theories that perpetuate the absurd notion that distress, and emotions are diseases! If you really take on board what I've just said then you will understand how shocked I'd felt when I realised that he was diagnosing denial; dismissing my actual thoughts, words, feelings.
He had not heard me explain, even though I had told him, why I wasn't going to give up on my marriage until I knew that it was the right time to do so.
I had said that I couldn't make a decision without knowing what was actually happening. I said that I don't judge people until I'm certain about the facts, but as my husband didn't answer my questions truthfully I was stuck.
I didn't know if my husband was metaphorically stumbling around, knocking things over, breaking things, because he'd experienced seeing his son attempt suicide and if this fear and rage he enacted was similar to my son's psychosis? In which case, like my son - he would eventually come to face the whole of it, and get through, and then return to love.
Or was my husband now purposefully smashing my home up, because he wanted us gone, because he had no intention of facing anything!
Is there a test for this - other than asking?
He says - "Isn't that denial of information, which was your experience, information in itself?...But you weren't being given it - what I'm trying to say is, wasn't that information in itself, that you were being denied what you needed. That's information about his behavior""
So welcome to the head f**ck that is psychotherapy. And if you know how to determine when someone who needs you to believe that he is telling the truth, is actually lying, let me know! And this statement from Kit so echoes my current dilemma - if Kit intuitively knows how I feel about him, he isn't giving me the information I need!
I'm still recovering from being lied to, I can't take more deception.
He - "See I remember for thinking for quite a few sessions that I was looking at denial".
That was obvious.
He - "There were all the memories of what you had been and could still be.."
And I say - "But we weren't a cartoon couple. We got on and were friends, we had a code of conduct and it didn't make sense to destroy everything. Therefore I needed to think very carefully. That his code of conduct 'went out of the window' was different. He'd already framed it once as a massive mistake...But I was waiting for the 'gone too far' to be proved - once it was proved, I hit destruct"
And then we are back together talking about psychiatry and the vagal nerve, and he's talking about how faith cures can stop people getting appropriate treatment...and we are together and apart. And then many diverse topics as we get closer again.
The hour ends.
And he says - "My that went very quickly"
Both of us laughing, sounding like the very best of friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment