The ship of fools. 12th August 2021.

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:

What’s happening?

Why are they inside the box…

He tells me it is 'his test for undiagnosed autism'. 

I pause, much taken aback. 

I see no connection at all between people trapped in a big box and autism; does he mean this as a metaphor? But he said it is a test. I 'bracket' the thought that is getting louder -  'I don't understand the picture, so does he now think that I'm autistic?  

I say again, 'no seriously - why are those people in the box'?

The box was actually a travelling theatre! 

What a delight I never knew such things existed! Were they like ice-cream vans? Just turning up any where - seems an amazing idea, it should happen! He told me more, I was awash in joy and hilarity.

He told me that the bag pipes in the picture symbolized male genitalia, and when I said that I honestly didn't understand - meaning, why are they by the bishop and the procession carrying a statue of the Virgin Mary!? It was even funnier as he explained, with his face completely straight, no hint of laughter that - 'it's the shape'. 

Well obviously it's the shape, that is not difficult to see! 

Once I'd stopped laughing, we were somehow talking about The ship of Fools; a visual metaphor representing setting out on the wide sea without preparation, least of all a map. Nobody on the ship of fools has any idea why they are there or where they are off to! 

An apt description.. 

Discussing diverse things is exactly what I enjoy most. As we talk I hear his concepts; his ideas and his expertise. But just after he conflates Dionysus with Jesus, in his next breath he changes the subject back to the notes. 

The notes he made about my assignments. 

Surely by now it's obvious that I would much rather talk about how Dionysus led the dead, dancing their way beyond the Eleusinian Mysteries, ever onwards to the flowery Summerland meadows of the Underworld. I want to talk about the things that give depth and flavour to human experience..

'Back to the notes' -  I felt as if I was hearing 'it is a waste of time to talk with you'.

But I'd just learnt about traveling theatres and bagpipes! 

I wanted more, all this especially about the symbolism of the painting, is new information for me. I never knew that about bagpipes!

But then he is back to Kohut, and being what the clients needs you to be - having the safe argument, or the cosy agreement...And I divert this because Kohut gives me the creeps!  But inexorably, despite my best efforts the talk reverts back to developmental stages. So I divert the conversation 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! 

I am not going to talk about Kohut! 

But is all this telling me that he believes 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 believe so many different things - and as 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 - basically, this is often a part of how post traumatic growth takes place. 

He doesn't believe in 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 interesting!

He continues, explaining that people don't even learn from traumatic events.

Clearly, by his tone of voice, 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, it feels like anger or despair? This is something I would love to know! And it is sad that he doesn't seem to hear that 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 by telling me about the stages of grief described by Kubler Ross. 

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 a therapist needs to let go of all and every theory - nothing matters more at any moment in the session than the ability to respect and to honour the client's truth...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. 

And the painting - autism!

I prefer to be a person who wont make a decision without knowing what is actually happening. My husband didn't answer my questions truthfully. I was stuck until I had enough information to make a choice. I didn't know if my husband was metaphorically stumbling around, knocking things over, breaking things, because he'd experienced seeing the aftermath of my son's suicide attempt 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?

Kit tells me that the 'denial of information' (it was bare faced lying) by my husband was information, so welcome to the head f**ck that is psychotherapy!

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 about denying information 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 - it is purposeful?

I'm still recovering from being lied to, I can't take more deception.

Kit reminds me that he thought that I was holding on to the past.

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.

Session 12th August 2021. Transcript.