Correspondence.

13th February 2024.

• I believe that what happened to me is too important to be ignored. 
• I also believe that technically speaking, this subject is too personal, and it should be confidential - and absolutely not put in a blog! 
• But this feeling of embarrassment, this feeling of I shouldn't say it, is full of shame and guilt actually, but ultimately I have to ask myself, is my sense of shame and guilt, my silence doing any good? 

Silence contributes to maintaining the problem - silence prevents things changing, silence - my silence - cuts off any possibility of learning how to make improvements. 

• Clearly I think that this information should be in the public domain, as much information as possible actually. 

I wrote to Kit to open up dialogue.

Recent emails.

13th February 2024.

If there is emotion, something matters. I trust in the beauty and dignity in expressing need, and I see an innate value in communication. Making a request is about finding a way to meet needs. To ask is to acknowledge our interdependence.

Dear Kit,
When I left your room for the final time. I felt bereft, I needed harmony, mutual recognition, to be seen and heard and respected. Especially to feel trusted - I felt unsafe for feeling as I do about you. I needed it to be put into a safe form. And for all sorts of reasons , that simply hadn't happened .

Most of all, I needed to know what I could do to make it possible for you to suggest a way for ‘coffee fueled discussions’ - ongoing communication and joy, to continue; because I think I am someone with whom such discussion is often fun, and dare I say, enlightening. I enjoy taking ideas, theories and concepts apart, and of course I always want to go deeper into the discussion. I valued your intelligence and energy, and especially your clarity. I wanted to continue to learn with you and from you.

 
Ultimately though, this had to be in a way that would be OK for you. I can imagine how you feel about maintaining the boundaries between therapist and client and the queasy sense of unease around this subject. But in truth, I felt disempowered and gagged by those boundaries.

A much needed re-contracting, didn't happen.

When I heard you asking, during several sessions, if coffee fueled discussions would suit me too? I felt inspired, hope, trust, mutuality. But I couldn’t pay you for this; the benefit of such talk needed to be mutual.

I prize and need equality.

Then when I heard you explain how such discussions ‘never work’ I felt hopeless, powerless actually. When you asked me how such a thing could work I needed to know how you imagined it. It required our cooperation. I needed you to say what would be right for you.

And so to honour my need for challenge and exploration I am suggesting that we return to what we did best; to examine the underlying history and concepts that underpin the work we do. I will be ‘contrary’ because I don’t accept dogma, I chose to ask if ideas hold water for me and if not, why not, as an investigation into properties. I will take tangents, because meaning is implied via relationship, rather than as an intrinsic property. And I suggest such discussion should be by email; perfect for including links, a slow form of communication providing time to think through and refine arguments. I see no reason to shut down, close off, reject or abandon the best of what was.

If you cannot see a way towards this, what would you need to know, or what could I do, to make it possible for you to say yes?

---

Requesting session notes.
When I read your words, 'never contact me again' (16.9.22) after I'd tried to explain how I'd felt harmed 'by therapy' I felt my need for harmony most acutely. The metaphor I wished to avoid, became unavoidable - that of the plane crash. If there really is no possibility of any communication between us, then the only thing left to do is to learn from, and reflect upon what happened as a rich source of information. 

I would prefer communication with you about this as a ‘coffee fueled discussion’ - as an investigation into navigating powerful feelings’ - I would value a correspondence about what happened in our sessions after I gave you the recording ( see transcript at the top of this page) to see if we can both understand a little better, where we were each coming from. Would you be up for that?

I see it as an ethical duty to retrieve the 'black box', and make sense of the information it contains.

With love,
Xerpa

---

Agenda.

Aim - Resolution.

Proposed action to achieve this

1. Consensual dialogue.
2. Or explanation and apology.

Motivation.

1. Personal.
I value you as a person, for your intellect and knowledge, I cherish the potential of a continuing dialogue. I wish to honour the harm that has occurred to both of us, through gaining information - a prerequisite for the creation of knowledge.

2. Wider context.

Awareness is core to the accuracy with which we interpret another person's motive. The imputed motive organises our perception of their behaviour. I interpret your explanation of 'erotic transfer' in the therapy room as simplistic, dismissive and avoidant. I believe that your surprise when I communicated my feelings about you (to you) indicated a lack of awareness. I had reason to raise the possibility of a similar underlying dynamic in other sessions with other clients - in the past. And unless your awareness is increased, it will happen in the future.

Number, mode and purpose of 3 future communications.

1 - 13th February 2024 - Email+ letter - a request for dialogue.
2 - 26th February 2024 - Email+letter - a request for session notes’ (Under ICO there is a legal requirement to comply within one month of receipt of the request).
3 - 21 st June 2024. Letter - all information will be sent to you..

4 - 21st September 2024 - if resolution fails then I rescind my promise that all information relating to our interactions is closed. the anonymised information stream will be archived as freeware.

No other actions are required. // I do not see any purpose in further action // I expect this situation to be resolved by the options outlined in this email + letter.

Wishing you well,
Xerpa

---------------------------

His reply.

Fri, 16 Feb, 10:25

Hello, Xerpa,

I received your hand-written letter and email yesterday. I am unclear about the meaning of some of the contents and need clarification so I know how to engage.

You would like “consensual dialogue” when you know already from my previous emails since the end of sessions that it would not be consensual, so I am puzzled as to what this could mean.

You would like an “explanation and apology” but you don’t state who is explaining what to who, or who is apologising for what and to who. I have already explained myself many times. To explain again would be to repeat myself.

You request further contact, with a schedule I am expected to adhere to, with what reads like a threat. This is not “consensual dialogue”.

“21st June 2024 – letter – all information will be sent to you”. You do not state what information this is, why you are holding it, or why it is significant.

“21st September 2024 – if resolution fails then I rescind my promise that all information relating to our interactions is closed. The anonymised information stream will be archived as freewave.” I will take this in parts.

“if resolution fails” What do you mean by resolution? It appears to mean if you don’t get your own way, i.e. if I do not respond as required to your implied threat. This is not “consensual dialogue”. 

“then I rescind my promise that all information relating to our interactions is closed” What promise and when? What does “all information” mean? What does “closed” mean? This appears to be cryptic and threatening language.

“The anonymised information stream will be archived as freewave.” What does this mean? What is an “anonymised information stream”? What does “archived as freewave” mean? Freewave is a data company. Does this mean you have been keeping recorded or typed records of our sessions on Freewave? Does putting it on Freewave mean it is no longer anonymised? All of this needs explaining, as I am having to guess what it means.

“No other actions are required”. Requiring anything of me is not “consensual dialogue” but giving me orders.

Please clarify.

Kit

--------------------------

17th February 2024.

OK...so that did not go well! 

I thought my emotionally rich language could be a bit much, though it is clear and honest, and it says exactly what I wanted to say. 

But then I gave him 'the agenda' because this is serious..

And he sees it as 'giving him orders'.

I see it as enabling an informed choice.

I replied.

------------------------------------

Mon, 19 Feb, 16:19

Hi Kit,

You wrote: <<You request further contact, with a schedule I am expected to adhere to, with what reads like a threat. This is not “consensual dialogue”.>>

Consensus, leading to consensual dialogue, does not exist between us. If it is to exist, it requires at the very least, dialogue.

You wrote: <<“21st June 2024 – letter – all information will be sent to you”. You do not state what information this is, why you are holding it, or why it is significant.>>

Information is significant because there is a problem regarding the way that you responded to my honesty, my experience was of coercion.

You wrote:  <<"if resolution fails” What do you mean by resolution? It appears to mean if you don’t get your own way, i.e. if I do not respond as required to your implied threat. This is not “consensual dialogue”.>>

My preference is resolution via dialogue with the intent of understanding; with the aim of doing things better in the future. This mode of communication includes joy and growth, curiosity and change. 

If dialogue with you remains impossible, there can be no growth or change. I will instead be performing an autopsy - on 'dead' information. Suffering and frustration are not worth anything, they harm, not help. 

Remember recommending Jstor to me?

Aron Swartz?

Freeware derives from hacker ethic - the belief that information is a form of wealth that no one should be deprived of. 

I'm not the only person to have fallen in love with their therapist - Eros, has the potential to kill. This makes it a legitimate subject to share in a way stripped of personal identifiers.

You wrote:  <<“No other actions are required”. Requiring anything of me is not “consensual dialogue” but giving me orders.>>

My apologies, Kit, for using words in a way that causes you to feel threatened, and ordered - and indeed coerced. But nor do I believe that life is a zero-sum game, in which for me to win, you have to lose, or for you to win, I have to lose. Preferences are not fixed, our wants can and do change.

With love,

Xerpa.

+

The definition of coercion.

"Being forced to enact even a true theory, against one's will, is psychologically indistinguishable from - and therefore exactly as harmful as - being forced to enact a false theory". Sara Fitz-Claridge.

----------------

Tue, 20 Feb, 10:03

From Kit:

You have now sent me 2 emails that do not answer my question.

Your letter read like a threat: do as I say or else ... Or else what? You have still not stated what, only more cryptic messaging. This is deliberate vagueness, of course. You state only that you are akin to a hacker and: you will share information - what information? where will it be shared? how will it be shared? with who? as freeware - I have no idea what that means: you will create a programme that spreads information from our sessions, breaking therapist-client confidentiality? 

Do not apologise for "using words in a way that causes [me] to feel threatened, and ordered - and indeed coerced" when that is exactly what you are attempting to do.

---

20th February 2024.

I honestly don't know what to make of his reply. All I can be sure of is that he clearly has no wish to understand what might have been harmful in his approach, therefore he has no intention of asking himself what he could do to improve. 

I'm fortunate to have had this experience, and rest assured I would not treat any client as he treated me. But also, if someone wanted me as a therapist to help us (because therapy isn't one person) to resolve a crash, I'd be negligent not to step up and do my best.

I'm saying that his conduct breaks our ethical code.

Now I don't know which of us is right - there are many FUBAR theories in psychotherapy. But you gentle reader can read my account of the sessions and decide what you think. I am sorry that we don't have the whole thing, it would be better to have his point of view too. Unfortunately, this is the best I can do.

So, I was rattled by his tone, actually....here is my reply,

------

20 Feb 2024, 13:26 

I will attempt plain English.

"

"

"

"

"

Right.

Breathe...

I am not a hacker, this idea is almost flattering but...I have a compelling image of myself now being led to the dunking stool and if I 'drown' I'm proved to be innocent.

- My ability to code is confined to writing webpages using xhtml, and using Quake engine console codes, as I used to write 'walkthroughs' for 'Quake engine games' 

- hence I needed to:

• a. use console codes.
• b. write xhtml.

-  Using code  isn't the same as designing and evolving code. I have no idea how you can reassure yourself that I know as much as a fruit fly about writing code.

- The concept of 'freeware' derives from 'hacker ethic'.

- 'Hacker ethic' was described in a book by Pekka Himanen.

- When I use the term, I mean the belief that 'information is  analogous to wealth, and that no one should be deprived of it.

We are now on the subject of who owns information, and how information is shared.

Back to Mr Swartz, and Creative Commons copyright.

The term - 'Share information'.

Information 

- in this specific area information means, but may not be confined to:

My point of view, my knowledge, my thoughts, opinions, insights, I am 'the creative' so to speak, and unless I ask for money, the information I share is 'freeware'. 

Share.

- allow to be in the public domain.

- format undecided.

breaking therapist-client confidentiality.

?

Please explain.

-------------------------------

(I asked him to define confidentiality because our sessions were conducted with a standard therapy agreement. This requires him to protect my confidentiality, and it is not a reciprocal agreement. A client can say anything at all about a therapist. His contract says nothing about my limitations. It is well understood that people receiving therapy are at liberty to share any or all of it, whatever they wish, and how ever they wish. And this is important - because there is a power dynamic in favor of the therapist regardless of how much the therapist pretends otherwise).

I had promised him 'confidentiality' but I now see it as desperation and panic on my part. It absolutely should be blown to bits.

14th February 2022.

Me -  "And it was hard. But it's OK, hard and difficult are OK. So what's the best way to manage something, I have to be truthful, otherwise...but you talk about the ethical code! To not have told you, by my own standards, then I'd be breaking the ethical code. So what's the alternative? Find another therapist, well I can't particularly because what do you think would be uppermost in my mind? Dealing with this! I can't talk about this with another therapist, I know we all have confidentiality 'vows' but this is between I and you. But coming back as a client, how could I come back as a client! I couldn't "

------------------------------------------

Wed, 21 Feb, 20:10

From Kit:

After my email of 16.9.2022 telling you not to contact me again, I did not reply to your following card, email, letter, email, and another email. I only replied to your letter/email of 15.2.2024 to understand the meaning of your threat. 

Now that I see you either:

(i) don’t have a completely clear idea of what you are threatening me with or 

(ii) are not willing to tell me, and that you have confused matters by not understanding the meaning of freeware, this conversation has served its purpose.

Ethical psychotherapists and clients or ex-clients do not have a non-therapeutic relationship of any kind – friendship, financial, professional, or romantic. That would be a dual relationship, and fraught with ethical problems. I draw a clear line and do not make exceptions, nor should any good therapist. You should have known this as a principle from your course. You certainly knew it from me, as I repeatedly told you. I have never shown any interest in you, other than the appropriate interest of a therapist to a client. To tell the story any other way is a fantasy, a fantasy that is clearly making you very unhappy. Let it go. 

Do not contact me again.

---------------------

21st February 2024.

Finally! 

As close as we can get to resolution - and a 'non-dual' relationship that is 'fraught with ethical problems' so, go figure. Clearly he doesn't see any ethical problems relating to his response! What I'd needed from Kit and requested from him was honest dialogue! I had said repeatedly that I needed his honest feelings. And if I'd received that, both the missing information, and my ethical dilemma ( the truth that aversive and defensive reactions are dangerous, and that he will continue to use them) could have been addressed'

Nor is it true that ethical psychotherapists and clients or ex-clients do not have a non-therapeutic relationship of any kind – friendship, financial, professional, or romantic. 'Contracts' change. I'm part of a study / encounter group that includes a previous therapist - and my supervisor may join future sessions. 

Client is a role, not a diagnosis. 

In the light of this experience my criteria now for defining ethical behavior and therefore what an ethical therapist would do in this situation comes down simply to this; an ethical therapist shows courage enough to state his or her feelings with honesty - and compassion. 

I'm relatively happy with his statement, I have never shown any interest in you. A part of me is asking, is it 'for the camera'? Well Kit - you may well get more than your 15 minutes.

But the fact remains that if he had said that he didn't have any interest in me when I'd asked, instead of being embarrassed - indeed blushing - we could have got somewhere better, sooner! Because his attitude towards me at the beginning of 'therapy' was not clear - there were three occasions at least when it was possible to interpret his behavior, as interested. So forgive me for wondering, is this outraged 'how could you ever think such a thing of me'  - a fine example of what Herr. Freud called a reaction formation? 

Fortunately this is his problem not mine. I simply have but one decision to make...to open the box up for everyone, or not?

When a client has an issue with the therapist that needs to be resolved, the first rule is to make contact the therapist.

And if the therapist closes all communication down, fulminates and splutters? The next step is a complaint to the professional governing body.

The question is, what is more important?

Receiving an apology from him, his understanding that he handled this very badly and 'clients' have a right to complain.

Or, do I make our interaction freeware?

Option 4 - if resolution fails then I rescind my promise that all information relating to our interactions is closed. The anonymized information stream will be archived as freeware.

Kit has been given an opportunity to seek resolution, and to learn from what has happened and he has chosen not to do either. Therefore the outcome of this email dialogue between us is that all posts are scheduled to publish each Monday, and anyone who reads this blog is at liberty to draw their own conclusions. My final task will be to send a link to the Wayback machine just to make sure that these ephemeral, electronic words are safely stored beyond deletion.