The cat mew...and Factor X (Oedipus)

It is at times like this that I need Kit. You see, I don't understand the cat-mew...the CTMW, Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe and I'd like to.

For one, I love the language of it:

An act is a temporal process, and self-inclusion is a spatial relation.  The act of self-inclusion is thus "where time becomes space"; for the set of all sets, there can be no more fundamental process.  No matter what else happens in the evolving universe, it must be temporally embedded in this dualistic self-inclusion operation.  

For two, the cat mew could be entirely mad! And a total waste of time, it pains me that I don't recognise enough of the concepts to judge! 

Yet it is also possible that Kit would not be the perfect person for this. 

And asking myself why he may not be, reveals another aspect of factor X.

In Jungian theory, someone who defaults to an extroverted mode of Thinking accepts definitions because they are externally validated. Whilst someone in an introverted Thinking mode, asks themselves, does this construction of reality really accord with my perceptions, regardless of received opinion. We each use both modes, but we do have preference and habitual tendencies.

I believe that one of us was at war (prejudice is occurring, more than preference) with introverted thinking. Between his words as he talked about therapy I heard enough to understand why a part of him had sided with his father against himself, and this part of factor X meant that my introverted thinking mode was classified as contrariness. 

For that had been his experience as a child... I wasn't speaking as a client, but as an equal (challenging authority?!) 

Introverted thinking tends towards intuition. Introverted intuition prioritises the patterns and possibilities to be found in incoming information. Whilst extrovert thinking becomes sensing, a prioritisation of facts and concrete information. 

OK, recap,  all the times he said  'this has been so much fun', all the 'coffee fuelled discussion' feelings' talking with me brought back for him,  had to be then discounted. For he had inadvertently forgotten hierarchy and treated me as an equal. 

His intuitive thinking was a dangerous mode when he was a child (my assumption based on his words and his preferred belief system) . 

This theory takes seriously his claim that he didn't intuit my feelings for him, something I find impossible to believe! It positions his choice to become a therapist, as a need to encounter the Child-in the client, to help the Child get to safety by becoming less emotional, more rational. 

Apparently adult

But the emotion I read from his tone of voice, body language? I perceived fear and shame. 

His Factor X? 

This therapy almost killed me.

His 'compelling reason' to avoid a real and equal dialogue was 'clients come back'.  This is a nonsensical rationale, there are many therapists to choose from. We did not have a therapeutic relationship. My reply, 'I'm not a client' was met many times with 'when a client is still attending but not talking about client things... Questions need to be asked'. My reply was resolutely 'I'm not a client, and these are the questions I need answers to'. This was met with 'I don't understand where the ambiguity is'.... 

And because I didn't have any recordings, and because I didn't trust myself. 

I was silenced.