"Coffee fuelled discussions at 3 am". 4th October 2021.

Again, he starts with 'chit chat' - chit chat being his term for fluffy conversation - and it is nice. Yet I have no idea what to make of it. Is this part of the 'Kohuts' - 'Twinship' or, or is it 'real'? 

Could it be indicative of his trust in me, of our pleasure in being together for the purpose of discussion?

Or is this an act?

I have no idea. 

And it is exhausting!

So I take everything on face value. This is chit chat. This is all I can know right now. He goes into the kitchen to make me a cup of coffee. When he returns I continue the 'chit chat' and we are  metaphorically in Hereford cathedral. We are talking about the Mappa Mundi - and I feel as if we are there, together - when he suddenly says 'It's funny light - do we need the light on' ?  I say, 'it's the time of year and I'm ok' and he says 'good, because I'm ok as well' . And this synchrony breaks my heart wide open. 

He asks me -"So, where would you like to go today?"

I say that I'd like to talk about anything....I don't say 'let's go back to the Mappa Mundi'.

He says - "Well recently we have talked about Rogers 'Propositions'.

And suddenly 'we' are lost, as he tries to persuade me that my assignment is about 'how we use developmental theory in therapy'. 

But I don't use it!

In my assignment I wrote:

Work by Robert Sapolsky (Stanford.edu 2007) showed that the part of the brain responsible for processing memories is severely impacted by cortisol when stress is prolonged. And this has a link with depression. I take his research as confirming Rogers and Perls’ view that mental health is the ability to assimilate and to make sense of the whole of it - of all our experiences, for then we learn to react appropriately or at least creatively. And that a sense of safety is paramount for this to occur, not least because of the impact stress has on our bodies.

And my experience of watching my son entering into psychosis, and the way he was treated by the mental health team, means that any deterministic theory I hear now goes directly in to the bin!

 
Michael Cornwall writes:

The failure of empathy, and the resulting lack of deep compassion for those in extreme states, may be a not-so-hidden unintended consequence of the belief – and hope – that psychosis is possible only for those who are fundamentally different than the provider; that the dreaded psychosis exists in potential only in people who lack the “ego strength” of the defended and emotionally distant provider. By Michael Cornwall, PhD. Mad in America (2015)

We can all go there - why is eclipsed by the importance of how we get out!

Certainly Kit is a compassionate man - but the concept that there is a significant developmental difference between those of us at breaking point, our sleep full of dread and nightmare, our support systems shot to bits and our ability to think clearly, gone, and those who don't suffer in the same way? 

Ah me, I ask him how he feels about having made notes, having 'done what I asked him to do' and how he feels about the way I 'divert and reconfigure' and change the agenda (as he would see it).

He diverts this!  

He says -  'it's about what is useful for you really...'

I persist. And he persists, telling me that it was about how I asked him to talk about a 'thing', 'but we never quite get there' and then - 'this session is for you'! 

Seriously!? This is a whatever moment! 

How can I reply to that?!

If this session was for me, we would both be truthful.

And then he offers me The Holy Grail, he talks about when he was at university, about 'coffee fueled discussions going on to 3am in the morning' and how much he loved that, and how he has never had it since, and how he really misses it....'

And I'm saying 'let's have it because this would be perfect'!

And he is saying 'if this would be useful to you...'

Oh yes!

And then?

And then he is talking about how he tried to create this before with other therapists.

And it didn't work'.

WHAT!

So what is the name of this raising of expectations in order to disappoint. In this room it will replay sometime future, made more explicit with the additional statement (not a question) "That's not what you were hoping for." 

And then.

He asks me - "What do you want to use this time for"?

I've just said it would be perfect! 

Meaning...Yes! let's have coffee fuelled discussions at 3 am or pm!

How is that difficult to understand?

It isn't ....

What happened? I try to think only about practicalities, and not how it feels right now; that I've just had something I really wanted offered and then taken away!  

No, surely not, am I right in thinking that this is - a a Game?

I think it is!

The game of "Precious vase!"

• A offers B a precious vase. 
• B is happy and sits forward expecting to be handed the vase! 
• A sees B's enthusiasm, and 'accidently' trips.
• A drops the vase just on the point of handing it to B.
• A says "Oh, but it's broken! <pause> waits a moment for A to react.
• As A reacts B says, "that's not what you wanted is it!" 
• A's cover story, 'I share your disappointment'.
• A's reason for a cover story: avoiding confrontation with own uncomfortable feelings. A drops the vase at the last minuites, only A can know why! A's solution: ' I'd rather no one had the vase than to explain how I really feel'.
• The words ' oh, that's not what you wanted' has a nasty edge somehow. Dropping the vase , disappointing B as if it is an accident causes B to show shock, sadness, disappointment.
• A expected B to be disappointed in A in some nameless and unpredictable way. By dropping the vase, the disappointment has a name and cause?

I was careful not to show disappointment.

I focus on the present. I'm very aware that I don't want him to lecture me about how to do therapy. I've explained that my research project is about post traumatic growth, he has told me about trauma; the developmental cause and the cure. Totally missing the point! My research is about altered states; about how traumatized people haul themselves up out of nightmare and into the world once more through their interpretation of events, as perceived through their heightened experience. 

What I'm looking at and thinking about isn't part of his universe? 

I wish to proscribe him a hefty dose of J G Ballard to remedy this deficit.

It is no good, I'm smarting from the subtext; it wont work'.

I wont show it!

Too late...I can't stop myself.

I feel as if I've been thrown over a cliff holding tight to nothing except the bloody invite. What am I being sacrificed to, or for! Why 'throw me off the cliff'? I start talking about how I feel about attachment theory! My emotions and feelings are fully online and fully connected - and right now I'm hurt and I am damn angry. And I'm doing this because it feels too dangerous to say, 'hang on! What about the coffee fuelled discussions?'

What's going on here? 

Why am I unable to challenge?

Instead, I am talking about me - something I have learnt to interpret as being tangential!

He says - "But I think you are merging two different things here"

I say - "But the point is to explain why I bridle when you explain it (developmental theory)"

He - "We were talking initially about attachment styles because there is an assignment coming up".

Me - "To be honest - perhaps this sounds big headed - but the assignments don't pose a problem for me"

He - "I think this is the sticking point because you sent me the brief, and I'm talking about this not in relation to the person but as background theory for the therapist to have in their head - and then you are coming at it with 'oh this person, and that person' but this isn't what it's about. It's about the background which is in the therapist's mind which is relevant or not relevant, depending on the person sat opposite in therapy"

Me - I laugh...and pause. Waiting for him to grasp the obvious answer - let's carry on with coffee fuelled discussions instead'!

Silence.

I say - "I asked you to go through the assignment brief because we have this period of time and we need to find a good way to use it. So taking knowledge from you seemed like a good opportunity. I found that when you were talking about using developmental theory on clients, there was a part of me that would go 'ah..no no no no!' So that is what I have just explained - that there is a personal aspect to it"

He -  "That was a really interesting form of words 'using developmental theory on clients,' we don't do that"

What was the tone of voice, and that use of 'we' rather than 'I'? 

Is he insulted?

It feels like, 'reaction-formation'?

I  hear faux-regret, spoken by Parental, school-teacher,

The underlying message is - you are wrong - because you are ignorant (Child).

The tone of voice is, 'false pity'!

What else? 

Why does it feel like he is defending himself? 

The truthful answer to 'we don't do that' is 'oh yes you absolutely did 'use' theory on me, and I turned it into, 'please educate me Oh Great One!'

Which of course avoids any of the faux-regret.

All the above condenses into...

Me - "I'm not attacking you"

He - "No, no I know that, but that seemed to be a window on...

Me - "That I bridle at it. Yes! I see it personally, I do see it that way. I hadn't really 'got' the way people 'do' therapy; the structure. Because we are told 'there is no structure it is all client led' but that is untrue"

I then describe in technical details how therapy often includes a therapist offering a theory so that the client's experience can be externalized - to some extent. And how I don't do that...I ask them for their theory.

I say - "And I can imagine you saying to me ' why are you on an integrative course'?

He - "Yes...See what happened about 10 minutes ago is where we keep going to which is, I'm talking to you because you are on an integrative course in an integrative way, and you go, no no no that's not the way I'm going to do things because I'm at an SFBT counselling service"

No - I didn't say that.

Me -  (angry) "No, it's not because I'm working with an SFBT counselling service. I'm at an SFBT counselling service because of who I am. And I work with whatever system I'm in, and deal with whatever rules anyone else gives me, that's what I will do. But personally speaking I've seen that this thing about giving people theories can be a bit of a problem, so there is a bit of a personal issue about that! So I've understood that, I can just put that on one side. But yeah, I will keep bringing things back to me. I always relate experience to me personally"

He - "I really think you are massively missing something which is in the 'I've done that now, thank you' it sounds very dismissive. You have clearly had two unpleasant experiences"

What have I 'done that now, thank you'?

Ah, if I had let him do therapy it would be different, is that the implication?

And different would have been pleasant?

No! The problem is 'using theory'.

Me - "They were not unpleasant but they missed the point, and that is unfair for clients"

He - "Well that's about those two therapists, not something about theory"

He then tells me how useful giving people theory is, but more to the point how it helps him to understand the client. So, this is now parked. There doesn't exist time or space enough for me to explain. But, both therapists were amazing people. The problem was 100%  the theory, and the use of it (as taught) and not them. But now it is time to pour oil on troubled water, again...

Me - "And I want to say, I've never seen you as a person who misses out the other person's feelings"

He - "So you have seen it done the other way"

Well, no! They simply didn't ask me for my ideas or my understanding of how I managed not to break! They listened, but listened to what? Their bias was on 'deficit', 'struggle', 'pain'. With the assumption that if I patched my 'childhood deficits, I wouldn't be stressed about being on the receiving end of life threatening violence. 

Truly, it would have been better to have spent that money speaking to a Wim Hof instructor

But here and now? 

I'd say now that he over reacts to my feelings!

And it would have been so interesting to have said that in the room. But in 2021 I am in no fit state. And so we climb together towards higher ground, getting back into sync...as we talk together about how people are part of systems, and how it is common for therapists to ignore this. And I'm back, close with him again. 

Oh...but then I do the terrible thing. 

He's being so open. 

So I shy away. 

Because I don't want him to know how much I care.

It felt like letting a baby drop from my arms onto a concrete floor...