The impossibility of truth. 25th October. 2021.

As if I've stepped into in a spider's web.

I dare not move...

That which creates dizzying flights, 

Desiring the moon...

Will bring instead my

Destruction.

As a fox.

I run!

The hounds see movement.

A flash of red.

On fallen leaves,

Darkens their teeth and matted fur 

The awfulness of the last session.

Frozen, and torn.

Gives

The death-blow to 

Truth.

He -"So, two weeks ago, what happened?" 

Me -"My first thought is - is this a good idea going back to what happened?

He - "Why wouldn't it be a good idea?

Me -"Why wouldn't it be a good idea - so the aim of this is what?"

He -"To find out what happened"

Me -"So from my point of view, you had a list of possible things to do, you said 'symbolization' and I said yes! And you said emails and contracting, but was that really one of my questions? I know we had talked about it before in a previous session - so I replied that I didn't have any questions about that -  it was your concern, not my concern. So we were talking about your concern being put over by you as if it was my concern. Basically you needed to say that you have a problem! And not go around the houses, I remember saying this to you before that I prefer things to be straight and direct."

He - "Well that's what I thought I was doing"

My misperception?

Regardless...

Me - "This is my memory of it that we are talking about. And this is my perception of it. This was the beginning of it - do you see now why I said it's not a good idea to talk about this? Better to accept that problems resolve when you go in the direction that makes most sense..." 

He - "It struck me during the session particularly when I thought about it afterwards that it was important not least because some things became very clear to me, and an example of why things seem to be problematic because you were talking of...

Me -"I need to stop you there. Things were not problematic for me, they were problematic for you. This is a problem for you."

He - "They were really problematic for you during that session"

Me - "Because I was in a situation that didn't make any sense to me. Suddenly I was in a situation that was just...I was asking myself, where has this come from? I am being told that I'm X and Y...OK, what can I say about that? You can tell me I'm X and Y, but it's not going to sit easily with me".

He -"What was I trying to tell you - you were? 

Has he really forgotten?

Telling me I'm 'wearing a mask'?

That I'm not really affable and friendly!

That I have 'a need to be contrary'.

His interpretation of my wish to get to clarity, rather than accept dogma! 

That 'I'm tangential'.

Clearly I don't wish to talk about my assignments.

And I had explained why!

And the worst one, that 'I seem very angry' as I am fighting back tears! I was feeling bereft, lost, rejected. I was in distress, I was trying not to cry - how does that appear to be angry?

I mean the whole implied -perhaps you don't know anything about the therapeutic contract - seemed more than a little disparaging of my education (I'd been training for four years at least, by then). I was annoyed by that, but once I'd realised how awful this conversation was going to be, I felt myself losing any capacity to be OK...This was all the worse because I had thought that I'd got us into a more ethical position (in the light of my feelings for him). Because a mentor-mentee 'contract' felt less hierarchical, more flexible, to me anyway!

So I pause -  because I remember very clearly what he said! - "...erm...."

He - "Because I don't remember trying to do that you see"

So what was he was trying to do? I'm assuming that in his mind each label - contrary, tangential, angry, is a rational and objective identification of my process. And specifically, this knowledge is useful for us in the here and now in some way?

Whilst in my view, I'm hearing an intellectualisation of his emotional reaction to me not agreeing with everything he says, and his confusion as he suffers a subliminal perception of my feelings for him!

And instead of accessing emotions, using imminence, he distilled into a pointless philosophical diatribe simply because of his inability to just name his own feelings. If he is aware, clearly he does not have a good way to deal with Eros in the therapy room! 

Perhaps I should be grateful?

It could be worse?

Me - "OK, so you must be assuming that you are pointing out an undeniable, absolutely true reality - that I am contrary; that if you say something I have to contradict it because this is something I have to do without any thought or concept behind it, as if it is just as a reaction? That's what I thought you were saying to me. You did say it several times".

He - "That that is what keeps happening, yes."

No contradiction to my statement that I think he sees me as acting 'without any thought or concept behind it, as if I'm unconscious and unaware.

Me -"And this is a problem from your point of view"

He -"A problem in communication, surely.

Me - "Not normally - I mean I know that sounds like it is contrary, but is contradicting people a problem in my life? No, it's not."

I don't usually play the gender card, but quite a few men have told me - that men don't like being contradicted by women. They tell me this as if it is a revelation. But, having been a woman all my life I have seen how women are taught to keep any thoughts and opinions, that may bring conflict,  to themselves. 

So never speak up, or else. 

We have to teach ourselves how to break the rule. 

I learnt it in the NHS, consultants may be loud or quiet, and they may also be plain wrong sometimes. Speaking up really is difficult to do, but when a mistake, a prejudice or a disregard for the warning signs will impact the wellbeing of someone, it really matters! So I'm not inclined to sit by and let things go, and this includes arguing my own case.

He - "Well this is what I was trying to get at with what was happening with our session, because you were talking with great passion about two previous therapists"

There is a standard view therapists have about clients who say, ' my previous therapy wasn't helpful'.  that such clients exist to vex therapists. And he seems vexed by me - or am I misreading him as badly as he misreads me?

Me - "I was talking about how useless developmental theory is when someone is facing nightmare levels of stress and violence - And you are doing it again, you are telling me what I was doing"

He - "That is not what I'm doing at all - is that not what happened last session? You were talking with great passion about two previous therapists."

Me -"I was not talking about them with great passion, I was talking about the process - about what happens in therapy, which is their assumption that they know the pathway to go, and my experience of that is that they have missed the point. And of course that makes me annoyed, but I am not angry at them, they did the best they could do"   

He - "But you see what's happening now ..."

Me -"Is that you are missing me out."

The pain of this is unbearable.

He - "That I begin to say something and I'm never allowed to finish, I'm continually interrupted."

Me - "But can you not see that this is actually taking me to pieces at the moment. This isn't a good thing to do, it isn't fair."

He - "What isn't a good thing to do, what isn't fair?

I have just said -  this is actually taking me to pieces at the moment. This isn't a good thing to do, it isn't fair - and he wants me to explain why?

No!

He doesn't speak emotion.

I thought that in around the third session!

I dismissed it, emotional literacy is integral to therapy as I understand it, but perhaps not in TA?

I was talking about therapists missing out the reality of my situation and focusing instead on a theoretical 'cause of distress'. This is what he is doing. The present wears the clothes of the past! I've noticed before that he deletes any tone or texture of emotion from my language, translating metaphor, image, sensation into a language of process. 

Interesting - isn't this is how diagnosis (reification) operates? Words with the power to transmit via image and sensation such as; crushing, sinking, evil, burning, ceaseless terror, and horror - are safely packaged into one word: 'psychosis'? 

This completely misses out the human being!

OK...

So, he is talking process-language, all righty then - me too.

Me - "You are commenting on my behaviour, and playing back to me your view of it"

 He - "I'm trying to come to a resolution"

That statement may well be why I am now a 'qualified' mediator. And in my professional opinion (!) mediation requires the emotions to be invited in and included -  a Gestalt process. To stop the adrenaline overdose we need to talk about them using a 'safe' language (SFBT).

And if I wasn't flooded with panic at this point, but I really am! 

I can't think....

Me - "OK, so what is there to be resolved. What is the problem on your side? Because there isn't a problem on my side. Have I come saying 'I don't know what's happening in my life, I don't get on with anybody and I can't do anything, I'm X,Y and Z. No, strangely enough my experience seems to be the opposite. So despite being a really contradictory person I seem to get on quite well with people! So this doesn't seem to be my problem, it seems to be your problem - with me...so."

 

He - "Well again, I'm starting to express something and I haven't got there yet"

Me - "Because I fundamentally disagree with your view of me"!

He - "You don't know what my view is, because I'm not allowed to say it"

Tangential, contrary and wearing a mask!

Stepping out of that for a minute - gosh that is so interesting! I'd have given my eye teeth to know what his view really is! But he has told me very clearly that I am 'tangential,' and 'contrary,' and he has mistaken my body language when I'm on the verge of breaking down in total abject misery. 

I don't feel heard, safe, or that I'm with someone who is congruent.

Me - Because you have told me 'who I am' and what you've seen, and it is overstepping the mark. I haven't asked for that. It's as if you don't have permission for that".

He -"Is that why last session everything I said is wrong? Because that was what was happening. At one point I reinforced, because I thought it was important to do, something you said..

Me -"Ah ha, was that when you used the word question three times - I thought it was a question..."!

Considering my state of mind at the time, I did well to understand that much!

But that ah ha! from me was too much for him. 

At the time I felt that he'd purposefully trapped me  and my ah ha! Was my triumphant, 'oh yes, I certainly remember!' My ah ha! was to stop him telling me that I'd imagined the word question! Gaslighting, inadvertent, accidental even - but oh yes, this is a process I'm familiar with.

He -"I think we need to make a decision as to whether this is a good thing, because we are getting to the point where everything I say is jumped upon, and that's how it steamrollered last time" 

Things got considerably worse from here on! 

He told me several times that I shouldn't attend any more sessions because they are not good for either of us. 

So how did I stop him flying this plane into a mountain? It requires practice and self-discipline to use words as they are. I ignore the sensation or intimation or feeling that there is more that must be understood. Curiously it is the opposite process to being either tangential or contrary. 

And I think the turning point in our conversation occurred only because of my refusal to go below the surface.

He has told me to go. 

I'm not going to appear to him to be as fragile, or as close to absolute despair as I am. So he doesn't know that I'm fighting for my life, or that what he is saying could lead to me following my son's friend onto the tracks. 

People don't say that they are suicidal - when it is real.

The shell I hide behind at this point is protecting a tiny flame, my love for him is so important for me. He is my soul, I can't live for myself yet because of the battle I've been through - no one had faith in me when I fought for my youngest son. Certainly the mental health home visit team would have agreed with Kit that I am contrary, as I told them that my son had a right not to take medication. They would certainly have noticed how tangential I can be, when I intervened, to stop the bullying dialogue (the psychiatrist didn't mean to be, but he sure was a bully. Especially when threatening my son with sectioning for 'non-compliance') and oh, I certainly wore a mask when I realised that dialogue was impossible with them, and so I would have to lie...that didn't come easily to me. Perhaps if I am contrary, this is the very thing in me that meant I didn't lose faith in my son? I don't know. But I can't risk the damage that occurs when Kit misreads my feelings and emotions, and he has done this before.

I will not let myself fall into detachment or dissociation - unless I use them strategically. 

But my flame is very close to going out. 

He is saying - "...in any communication surely it's about bringing out what ever that is, with greater clarity and greater understanding. Otherwise I don't understand what it's about <pause> what's your understanding of what it's about"?

His communication is devoid of his emotions, there have been too many mixed messages. I can't communicate without emotions as a legitimate part of communication. We are trapped in a 'therapy' relationship, and I'm being broken under the constraints of the rules. I'm made nauseous by the deception. I'm in survival mode. Lights are fading, flickering out, one by one. 

Me - "That in this moment of time, to do the best that can be done with it. The best thing to do is to use this time in the best way possible. Examining what's gone wrong, it feels like this is you maintaining a view that there is a process of contradiction, as opposed to looking for some other way around this, and some other version we can do"

He -"I wonder if this is connected to something you said a while ago about SFBT versus integrative, that interaction can be solution based or problem based, and I wonder if that's what's happening here? You see there is something about understanding what goes on that is problematic, which in the way I work is fundamental or we keep repeating the same thing over and over again, you can't get to where you want to get to if the thing that's tripping you up isn't removed. You need to examine it. It wasn't me doing the contradictions last session, I was constantly trying to get back on track, that's what I was doing in the whole session and everything I said was the  wrong thing <pause> now I have an idea about why that might be. But my sense is, if I say it I may be accused of the very thing you just talked of".

"...now I have an idea about why that might be....'I'm not allowed to say it' 

I say, 'please say it' 

And?

And he doesn't.

This has nothing to do with modes of therapy, everything to do with how he takes emotions and confines them in neat, labelled boxes.

We then take another dispiriting trawl through the wasteland which make me feel that I'm wasting his time simply by breathing. Time in which I explain once more that no one can help any of us with those assignments! I end lamely, expressing yet again that therapy is mandatory on my course - so, using this time wisely is a sensible thing to do.

He - "And what would that be - what would be a sensible and good way look like?"

I don't say 'when we are talking about things we both find interesting! 

Me - "Well that's a problem for me, I can't answer that"

I can't answer. I'm beaten. I don't know what he thinks or feels, to tell him how much I love talking with him - when I'm not being told what my process is -  how much I value feeling close - when we both talk about ideas, and it is fun - would be to spread the cloth of heaven under his feet and watch him trample mud into my dreams... 

He - "So it's no wonder that we are stuck!"

Me - "So I'm asking you directly please, to suggest something"

He doesn't, so I offer one of my latest insights about therapy, and it becomes a dialogue between us, and he agrees with me on the point I'm making. 

And we are back. 

Back to normal.

What happened?

I felt utterly defeated when I said 'I can't answer that'. 

And it is my feeling that that reply was significant. 

Capitulation...

And I'm talking about therapy as ceremony, and then talking about myself in third person, wary always of being tangential. I access all my faith and trust in myself, to restore his trust and confidence in me. 

I tell him again, everything is useful. And finally he asks me, what have I got from him. And this moment is the key.

He examines and understands his process.

Through my words...

He - "There are some things I say sometimes, it's only occurring to me now - if sometimes I think I see you bristle, it's occurring to me why that might be. That sometimes you will say something about being with a client, and I'll say something and you will say 'yeah but that's integrative and I'm much more solution focused and I think this is better' and I find myself essentially saying, this will work in these circumstances, it wont work in those circumstances. And I think I remember you saying something when you suggested the move over from therapist-client to mentor-mentee, that I have things you don't have, and there's me trying to give you those experiences. But then I think, maybe that's the sort of thing that somebody needs to find out for themselves. Telling somebody that something is the case, that they haven't yet experienced, can't give them that experience. There are sometimes with some clients when no theory works, even the lightest of stuff like you have described - solution focused... "

And I ask him questions, I give him the Tibetan terms, Nyntik and Menga - heart essence and wisdom key, which show that I've understood exactly what he has been telling me. 

Heart essence is direct understanding, and wisdom key is an experience - an empowerment - that allows meaning to be unlocked. 

Both these terms relate to the prime importance of devotion and trust in one's precious teacher. He doesn't know that, so again he doesn't hear love.

He says - "I don't know what happened - about half way through the session, but you really shifted gear and the second half of the session felt lovely"

I didn't 'shift gear - I 'stayed on the surface'. This is how I work with extremely emotional clients, where their trauma is a whirlpool of chaos and loss. He was speaking to me in a way that would not end well. I describe the process.

Me - "Yes, because most of our sessions have always felt lovely. So it felt un-sensible, or crazy  to focus on the eddy currents and whirlpools that will drag things down. They don't mean that this is reality, they are just a potential. Concentration on what is underneath is a dodgy process -  calling back those feelings - and so I didn't wish to go there or stay..."

I'm not going to put into words for him, what has happened. Which is that I refused to panic. I refused to give in to despair - whilst being in despair. 

He - "Just to be absolutely clear - it wasn't we can't work together, it was can we work together and I think the answer is yes"

Truth is, during this session I felt as I was on a plane with a madman who was trying to force open the door with the aim of pushing me out! I felt battered and bruised, as I left the room.

And so I go - off to Waitrose for a bottle of Perry and a Charlie Bingham's curry for one.  

This is my 'self care' - I need time to decompress and recover. More than this, I go to the Waitrose where my son's friend worked before his death; I return to remember my resolve, my promise to never give up, I absolutely have to hold tight to that vow. 

No matter how hard this path, I will walk it to the 100th placement hour and beyond.

--

Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half-light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

W B Yeats:

"Contrariness"! 11th October 2021.

The room is 

cold.

Air filters...breathe out 

glacial air.

Like being on a space ship.

He talks about 

disinfecting 

surfaces.

[Definitions of contrariness. Deliberate and stubborn unruliness and resistance to guidance or discipline. Synonyms: perverseness, perversity.]

He refers to a sheet of A 4 on his left and says: "I have a list taken from your emails: 

•  Symbolization. 
• Emails and contracting; 
• in the email there were things you were hearing which I wasn't meaning to say. 
• And 'script analysis'. "

I say - (referring to script analysis) "That last one was a joke - but we could do that if you want?

He - "It sparked a few thoughts....Well, there is a theme here I think in terms of...

Me - (unfortunately I am still in joke mode) "That sounds like induction to me..."

He - "Well if someone has a script it means it keeps reoccurring I think, and the minute you mentioned script analysis I thought, ah yes all these things fit the theme".

Me - (still not getting how bad this really is) "All these things fit the theme? So there is this container, the edge of this small bubble that is this Monday - what's to do best with this time? It's not my whole life. So there is more to me than this".

He - "Well there is one thing you mentioned which I want to talk about directly which is emails and contracting. Have you talked about contracting in college at all?"

I am lost and bewildered. Why he is asking me this? In level 2 it often felt as if we talked about nothing else! I remember having to make myself learn contracting as a script. For the life of me now, I have no idea why it seemed so difficult. I guess training works!

He - "Yes...because there is a standard part of contracting.."

He explains the standard use of emails in a counselling contract, and I'm confused. I feel chastised, why is he mentioning it now? I've emailed him most weeks to say what might be useful to talk about. This has been right from the first weeks. And it began because he emailed me after our first sessions - and I thought...oh, that's not what we were taught...this means that he is thinking of me. And at that moment he was really unattractive.

What changed?

Calling me a minx...that transgression hit me like a freight train (to quote Bob Dylan).

But here now?

The floor cracks and shifts, I'm dropped into a hell of thinking I'm going to be asked to leave. He must know how I feel about him? This must be the session when I'm told to stop it! To go. 

And again he says that I'd given him a task - to talk about the assignments - and that he wasn't able to do it because of the tangents. 

Right now I feel crushed, and I'm scared. 

I defend 'tangential'.

I tell him that exploration is the point. 

Following divers paths, no fear of being lost, enjoying the journey...

And then he repeats my words from last week  "Theory being used on you"

I try to explain that I don't want to talk about it.

I talk about it.

Why did I do that?

This is what I explain: That therapists have a theoretical underpinning to their work. This determines the words we echo back from the client, it alters our tone of voice, it determines the questions (if any) that are asked.

Unfortunately many therapist's forget to hear that what is happening to a person is happening in the here and now. There is an automatic assumption that the present is not working because of the past (rather than because of the present!) and extrapolate that looking at what isn't working, and its relationship with the past will free the client from repeating old patterns. I once believed this to be plausible. But the more I think about it, the less plausible it is. So I work in present - the present problem looks as if it is a replay of thoughts and feelings from the past because everything we see is seen in terms of our past. The art of my work is enabling a person to find a way to react to a present that looks like the past. First step is to name what is really happening by seeking an overview. This helps us to know what we are really dealing with. Then we name our resources, understand our resilience, and start paying attention to those moments when things are better, and then do something different...and that is it.

Healing one's past is something to do during good times. Because even understanding the present with an understanding of the past cannot stop the present being as awful as it really is. An awful present can be changed - by doing something different - but just understanding wont be enough. 

When I first saw a therapist  - I was studying level 3 at that point - my 'presenting issue' was my husband's personality change (he spoke to me like his dad spoke to his mom). 

And that was a problem because? 

His dad was a bully, his mom a victim of coercive control. I couldn't 'be her' but it was as if he wanted me to be, so he could bully me. Four years later I discovered the reason! His personality had changed...because he'd fallen for someone else. I mean of course that isn't a reason to be vile to anyone! But that is how he rolls. The interesting part is, the memory from my past that kept replaying, was of being 'shut out' because that provided a metaphor for how I was feeling in the present, it is what was actually happening. So this perception was crystal clear - but the time frame was wrong. 

But hey, yes, the inner child work the therapist did with me? At the time I thought, wow - this person has qualified - and that seemed such an immense task, I was in awe of her! And don't get me wrong, her work with me was beautiful and kind. But it consolidated my self-blame, because it didn't confound my certainty that my messed up childhood was entirely to blame for the changes in my husband.

But think about it?

How could that actually make any sense?

Second therapy, my issue: son, drugs, sectioning psychosis violence betrayal. Perhaps 'inner child' makes more sense? No, really, don't make me laugh. The outer-child was taller than I am and swinging heavy objects at me if I said the wrong thing, or failed in totally inexplicable ways. And yes, the inner-child work was memorable and a wonderful diversion. And the therapist was so, so compassionate and kind. But the only session that I found to be helpful was when we discussed my feelings about SSRIs. 

He says - "You seem really angry about that".

Directly dismissing my experience!

Me -  "I'm not angry with the therapists, I am frustrated at the lack of common sense. And for people living in that situation, to make out that it's all them, and to patch something that happened to them as a child is not going to help them. At this point they need a conversation about what they are doing that helps them, and what can get them through.

He - "So that sounds like an account of what you got compared to what you wanted"

Me - "Compared with what is useful - it should be a useful interaction"

He - "And what you got wasn't useful"

Me - "Not really, no. I didn't find anything I didn't know before. And did it help? No, of course it didn't help. Help was learning that when you call the police they don't press charges and give 'service user' a criminal record! I didn't know that. A therapist isn't expected to know that. But at those points where things were too much? No help - just developmental theory! I have answers now - Wim Hof method means I have practiced panic, I understand how to use breath, and I now know that a lot of how panic feels, is due to CO2. Nothing to do with childhood. I mean you know how we think anxiety must be a mind thing, adrenaline and racing heart - I hadn't understood until I practiced Wim Hof Method. It gave me control, through practicing physiological stress"

He - "I must say I find it really refreshing to see the mask come off"

Me -"It's just my ordinary self - no mask!"

Him - "You know what I mean  - to see the usual friendly, affable you that's presented"

I'm feeling hurt and betrayed by him, and this will be the truth of the future.

But to go back a step, if I feel as if I need to be friendly and affable with him, unable to be all that I am feeling, why isn't he questioning why we are stuck in this? 

Me - "Well that is who I am! This one has always been here too! And it has taken me a lot to get back to here. Mainly it's been getting back to college. It isn't a mask, it's not a mask... OK, if you want to use the term 'mask' let's do Jung!"

He - "See I wonder if there is something in you that likes to be, or feels the need to be, contrary"

 At this moment I am terrified, because I am not strong enough yet to cope with this. I feel as if I've been placed in a trap that no one can escape by opposing - like one of those woven finger traps, or a spider's web; struggle will make things so much worse!

He - "Let me tell you what I mean, because I think I was using the word mask in a fairly ordinary..."

I interrupt! I'm the one who has studied Jung -  but why should I listen to someone who clearly isn't listening to me tell me, about me - or Jung for that matter!

Me - "No, I deny it absolutely. If you are saying that interaction between people should be genuine, authentic and totally natural all the time, that's incorrect. <Socially it would be a disaster!>"

Ah just as well he isn't me! I hope I'd have replied with - what would be so disastrous about us both being genuine, authentic  and natural!

He doesn't challenge me.

'Confluence'!

He - "Of course it is incorrect"

Me - "Right, the alterative is a level of interaction appropriate to the situation. Do I like to be contrary? No, I like to be clear. But it is from some sense of mutual respect that I believe that you can follow me, or I can follow you when I take 'a tangent'"  

He - "But there is a process whereby what was triggered in my thoughts from your recent term, script. and I thought 'oh, OK ' and then you said 'well that was a joke'..."

Me - "It was a joke, but everything is there as it is, and open to be dealt with"

He - "It set off a train of thought, fairly early on in our sessions I started off in my usual way which is to ask 'how are you' and this was a problematic question for you"

Me - "It will always be problematic because again, it relates to the level of interaction, and who am I talking to?"

He - "Yes, but it's a perfectly ordinary question"

Me - "Yes, but it's not an ordinary interaction!"

He - "What do you mean by that?"

Me - "This isn't an ordinary interaction"

Emotional honesty and open vulnerability, the prerequisites for authentic and genuine, healing dialogue are not ordinary. 

 

He - "I'm still failing to see how this relates to the question, 'how are you'"

But on the other hand...a game of philosophy is going to be as good as it gets, I fire up the philosophy core once more.

Me - "But there is also the problem that you are talking to a person who is Buddhist - here and now, still breathing."

Meaning, think! 

I view reality as a construct. 

How I am depends on how you are!

And if you are treating me as a client, looking for things to therapize..

He - "Well that's the point you made at the time"

I'm consistent in my tangential contrariness!

He -"And you spoke at great length about no self and all of that"

I also gave him Patrul Rinpoche's 'direct introduction to the state of mind', as he seemed to be overthinking the self and non-self thing! The fruition of the introduction depends on you...not the words. It was probably after I said this that he understood quite how mad I must be, because how could this ever be the highest and most splendid of all teachings!

 "Do you see the  room around you?"

"Yes."

"Do you hear the traffic in the street outside?"

"Yes."

"Do you hear what I'm saying to you?"

"Yes."

"Well, the nature of Dzogchen is this: simply this."

Me -"I did not talk at great length about no self, you keep putting that one on me"

He - "That's the way I would characterize - you probably didn't use the term, short hand of what you were describing"

Me - "No, is it? 'No lasting permanent self....so this moment is all of it..."

He - "See it's happening now"

Me - "Or is it that what you are seeing is me defining something, to get to clarity?"

He - "No, it's contrariness, because whatever I say you will find a problem with it"

Me - "OK, but a problem is a cause for thought, meaning there is something there needing to be found."

I'm missing out that he's hurt - he doesn't want me to 'find a problem' in everything he says. But, we don't have that level of relationship because he wont talk to me about what he feels, and I certainly wont tell him that I'm in love with him! So we end up intellectualising - as the only safe place we can meet! 

He - "You see in a later sessions when I was, when we were ...I made reference to 'solid self' any sense of self and you said 'yes, of course there is a self' and I thought, ok so what was the problem with the question 'how are you' then."

Me - "The problem with the question 'how are you' is  I will reply with 'I'm fine thank you' because I'm OK - which doesn't mean everything is OK and that I'm fine! I need an invite to talk about the not OK things - and I'm not OK at this moment."

He - "So it was up to you to answer it in what ever way you felt comfortable with - so where's the problem there"?

I have just said "I'm not OK at this moment" and I need an invite to talk about 'not OK things'.

Me - "So what did I say to the question? I probably said 'I'm OK' so that isn't a problem is it? I would laugh about it because you could have asked a different question! 

He - "What question would you prefer me to have asked"

Me - "To have been more specific I suppose; for example 'how do you feel about...?' ask me about some aspect of my life."

Him - "How can I ask that at the beginning of the session when we have only just started - that was the purpose of the question, to open up - where do you want to go"

His train of thought needs derailing!

Me - "Yes, and the answer was always behind me"

He - "What would be behind you?"

Me - "The Zoom background of Callanish, or by a lake, or any number of other places!"

He - "Yes - so I stopped asking the question....What's going on emotionally... because you seem particularly angry today"

Angry? 

I'm crushed almost unable to speak. 

Despair is so close. 

I need, I want this relationship to be us, worked out between us as human beings. To be human. I need so much to step out of the inhumane language rules guiding this interaction. 

But I'm trapped and I'm stuck. Client and therapist - I can't be truthful - I'm not supposed to want him.

And if I said it, I am certain that he'd treat it as an artefact, fail to take it seriously. And he would tell me that it must be transference. And to be told that, offered clichés, have my feelings and intelligence insulted that way, to experience yet again someone I love dismissing my feelings and my ability to understand myself? 

It would destroy me.

This session today is bad enough - he has told me that I wear a mask. That when I contradict, I'm being contrary. That when I change a subject I'm being tangential. That when I'm in almost more pain than I can take - apparently I'm angry. 

A direct insult would be at least straight!

But, I want to know what is going on with him.

Me - "Because this whole session seems to be about your frustration actually. So I'm not sure what we are doing. I'm not angry in particular, and I don't think I have a problem expressing anger, I just don't feel angry. It feels like being stuck in mud, cold, thick mud - unable to move" 

I am not going to say this is despair, I'm not going to let him know, I dare not!

He - "So how do we get out of the mud"

Four styles of dealing with conflict that wont solve anything; there is avoidance - accommodation - compromise - competition. 

Only a fifth style will work, can't we collaborate?

Me - I am beaten: "To go back to the beginning, clarity. So emails. What do you want?"

He explains that he doesn't want emails that are emotionally charged. The curious thing is, I had emailed him before - ages ago with 'emotionally charged' phrases such as ' we are sacred mirrors, opposites reflecting each other' to allow him to glimpse my feelings. 

So that was OK? 

My recent emails had been about theory, and I had addressed his diagnosis of me as tangential, and this seems to be 'it', the 'real issue'.

I explain - "I felt that my attempts to build knowledge were dismissed as 'tangential' so I sent you a mind map to show how the ideas fit together. and I wrote to you about debating theory, I like that idea, I think it has life in it! I asked for continuity. Lack of continuity may be an artefact of person centred counselling, I wouldn't ask a person if they wanted to continue with a subject the following week, and I'm not too sure why. And right now I feel as if I've been put on 'the naughty stool' "

Him - "And that's not something I've intended to do either"

So I'm wrong then - to feel this way? 

Because it isn't his intention?

The implication of his words...that I'm to blame for being so close to breaking down in tears of frustration, my sense of powerlessness and of feeling completely misunderstood, it is entirely my own doing! OK. so if I ran over next door's cat, I could say that the cat isn't injured because it wasn't my intention to drive over it!

What?

One of us in not sane here.

Me - "Regardless of intention, it's the way it's come over. I'm not saying that you have done it on purpose, I'm not saying anything other than this is how I feel"

Rather than talking about how I feel, he returns to the game of philosophy.

He - "You see and this is where we get really slippery in terms of our roles here. It's a really interesting therapeutic question isn't it, about what's intended and given compared with what's received."

Me - "No, no it's not"

I have no wish or ability to play. I'm broken. My reply 'no, no.' was said in despair, it is my response to the game. But foolishly I'm like someone with a broken leg trying to walk, if this is as close as we can be, I will try. I metaphorically manage to stand. I try to engage on the intellectual level, but my emotions are fractured, and unable to support me. I'm still trying to fathom how I could only be hurt by his tone of voice and words, if it was his intention to hurt!

He - "Why is it not"

Me - "Because what people intend is related to their values, belief systems and knowledge.. A person goes into a therapy room, says to the therapist I have this problem...therapist thinks, I've no idea but this theory may help. The therapist's motivation is good and pure, but the thing they offer doesn't help! Motivation is an aspect but not the whole thing - but there is no way to predict how another person sees things"

Curiously, my ability to play philosophy when my guts are in ribbons seems to shift us closer to the truth of what happened.

He - "Because in the email you used the word 'accused'"

The smoking gun - at last! This is why this session has been this way. The word accused has created all this! I'm suffering from his reaction to that word, this has caused the underlying energy of this awful session - really? This is madness!

Me - "Yes! But I thought you knew that I like to use emotive language! It wasn't like 'oh no you have accused me' it was 'Ah ha!!!! you have accused me :-)"

He - "See this is one of the problems with email" 

I hear relief in his voice.

Me - "I thought you would realize that there is no reason for me to use the word accused in a bad way -  about you! Why on earth would I feel that way!? But if you want me to sit here and accept everything you say, that isn't going to happen...it's like you imagine a linear path through a subject. But you don't know the destination! And it seems to me, looking at this from a third person perspective, that you have mistaken my emotional content as tangential. But it isn't 'going off at a tangent' it is part of the whole thing - what things spark is part of it!

He - "It depends on what we think it is, going back to a session where you asked me about games....then if I'm defining 'it' as having a clear understanding of what a game is and we go on a whole big journey that started off in one place and ended up somewhere else - then we have two different 'its'.

Me - "Do we need 'it' - what is 'it', so I can answer 4 or 5 questions 'correctly'? The subject is games, if the subject opens up...I'm trying not to use the word tangent! But I'm not meant to ask you...(I ask) what is your problem when 'it' is not what you thought it was?".

He - "Because you asked me a question and then we never get to the answer"

Me - "And this is significant because?"

He - "Because you asked me to be a mentor and then when the subject is X but X is never really discussed, well what's this mentoring about then?" 

That would require an essay...but my answer expresses my crazy, unasked for, deep and for me, a drowning love for him.

Me -"That you have experience that I don't, and I gain it from you. Not from what you tell me, but from your attitude"

I've just said I love you. It is implicit in my tone of voice and in the meaning of the words. It is not explicit - because I'm supposed to be a client. But love has been implicit in all our communications, regardless of who or what I'm supposed to be!

He - "OK Well there's an interesting question, about the implicit and the explicit in...I suppose, communication generally and the whole question of therapy. Is therapy actually about the words, or is it the atmosphere and two people in a room and how they are communicating? You would only know a fraction of it if you saw it written down, because it is happening in the room between them - that's a fundamental question isn't it."

I am completely at sea now. Unable to say can't you see what's happening in this room between us? In response to his word - question - I answer as if he has asked me a question. But I have no idea why he has asked it! I've heard the word question - so there must have been a question here? I don't understand...

Me - "No, how honestly is that a question? One implication is that all a person needs to do is to sit in front of a computer, a program that runs Rogerian dialogue (Eliza)  and answer the questions and we know that probably isn't true. The whole thing about therapy is the people, it is the room and the atmosphere, it is all of it..."

He - "See this is what I mean about being contrary. You took me to mean the word question in a way that I didn't mean it in order that you could then question the word question."

Again, I've misunderstood his intention and he defends his position that he has no responsibility because it wasn't his intention? I hope someone else would have said "Oh, you thought when I said 'it's a question' I meant it was a question' I see - totally understandable!

Me - "Well? Not necessarily?"

He - Well that's what I just saw happen. I said 'It's a fundamental question' meaning a matter, a subject, a thing. It doesn't mean something you sit at the computer and answer, that clearly wasn't what I meant"

Me -  (still very confused - he had used the word question three times - I feel accused of saying that therapy could be done through a computer program!) - "But no, it is the importance of the people, the room the atmosphere versus is therapy the words the therapist uses. To quote you, 'is it the words that matter or the therapy as a whole'. Why are you asking that?

He - "I wasn't asking that. I'm just reflecting back to you the importance of something you said, that's all I was doing"

Me - "I haven't said that, I haven't talked about that?"

He - "No you just said to me what you pick up from me isn't the subjects I talk about...

Me - "It's the way you do it"

He - "Exactly - and I just fed that back to you"

I replied - "Yes, but I know that because I told you! So why do I need that fed back to me?" 

He - "What are we doing?"

Me - "We are having an argument"

He - "I don't know why. It seems like today nothing I can say will be the right thing"

I don't say - Because I used the word accused in an email and you panicked!

Me - "I am sorry that you feel like that"

He - "And I wonder what's going on for you, that we are in this position?"

That you wont engage with me as someone who likes to explore ideas; that you have called me tangential and contrary. That something about the word *accused* has really got to you!

But I think I've caught sight of the 'smoking gun', something about how important it is for him not to be seen as responsible for other people's misunderstandings. 

Accused...is the key words here.

I don't think it would be wise to ask, 'what was so catastrophic when you were accused of', well of something because whatever it is it has completely wrecked your ability to deal with someone misunderstanding you!? And I'm being made to suffer because of it!

Me - "That I asked you for continuity - in an email - and I've not got it"

He - "What does continuity mean in this context?"

Me - "So - within that email I explained what the in-continuity was"

He - "Tell me..tell me here."

I get my phone to search for the document.

He - almost wails... "No not on your phone, communicate with me!"

Wow, a lot of emotion in that!

And if I had? 

If I'd said that I needed and yearned for us to really communicate - to get out of this one-sided therapy prison' how would that have gone down? And underneath this I needed so much for us to have the promise of a continuity 'on the other side' years away from my course and this situation. 

And if I had said it? 

I think he would have turned red in embarrassment, and blocked me further, shut me down more, used more and more words to prove how right he was and how wrong I am. And then yes - I would have thought of suicide. 

This was my life and death in the balance - my feelings red raw, and still bleeding.

I needed to get much stronger before I could face this

The severed lines of thought, the fractured lines of love, the red hot and tangled lines of meaning; all my reasons to remain alive, so newly mending, so fragile, were so nearly ruptured by this afternoon's session. So yes, I did well to get through without breaking down, and yes it was important not to trust him, important not to let him know yet that my heart and soul were already his - for so long as he didn't know, he couldn't accidentally kill me..

"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...

"It's becoming a theme." 29th September 2021.

It starts well, I feel that I'm talking to the person, not the role. He tells me his news, I join in. I am interested and sympathetic and ordinary. And I am aware that I'm in another one of the therapy forbidden zones; the place of 'chit chat'. 

But it seems OK?

And he instigated it?

So what goes wrong?

He is saying - not dramatically, but directly and uncompromisingly - 'a theme, it's becoming a theme...'

He says - "There is one narrative going on with you and quite a different narrative going on in me. Mine is being asked to do things which I'm then not allowed to do. For example last week you asked me to talk about the stuff that's here (my assignment?) but we are always side-tracked"

Did I?

I didn't ask him?

I seriously doubt it...

And now I'm panicking! 

Because the real problem must be my feelings for him! 

They have leaked out? 

Is it obvious?

IT IS OBVIOUS!

He knows...

OK, breathe!

But under the surface...

No! Do not try to imagine what is under the surface!

STAY ON THE SURFACE!

To answer his observation with the truth is impossible! 

I feel talked at. I am being talked at.

I'm never going to accept 'it's all about development'. 

Why didn't he talk with me about my research proposal - why is he talking about another assignment, actually why?

And now he's telling me that for clients 'sometimes there isn't even a better'. 

What have I said or not said? 

He says - "But if a client feels that their life is utterly worthless, and the only way they get through each day is knowing that they could kill themselves..."

Oh, this is why he wont talk about my research?

Because I'm focusing on post traumatic growth?

Who is he talking about...

A cold hand squeezes my heart, is it him who feels this way?

I can't let him know what I'm thinking...

I can't let him know how much I care...

So, I defend my position.

I interrupt - "Yes, that is their way - but it isn't about solutions, there is no 'solution' only the ways the person comes up with that work for them, or finding different ways to understand and feel - but they've come to therapy so they have hope that life isn't worthless!"

He says - "It sounds like CBT to me"

When 'Person centered therapists' say 'it sounds like CBT' this is not good. It implies right now that I, Xerpa believe people can think their way out of feelings, or worse, that I Xerpa, will ignore their feelings...and this is about as insulting as it gets in a therapist to therapist dialogue!

I reply - "I'm not looking at what is triggering or going wrong (a process used in CBT), Instead I'm asking 'what are you doing, feeling, noticing when things are better'? It's a very physical, embodied exploration of instances of when the problem isn't a problem - and using the client's language and ideas. And when I've been really fragile, that mode of thought has been the only thing that could get me through. There is no point directing people to look at the shattered mess, or question why did this happen... "

I feel quite strongly about this! 

He reacts against my strong feeling...

Why?

He then says - "I would very strongly advise you to wonder about other people's experiences that are different to yours - some people, let's say when they have been sexually abused in childhood, the last thing they ever want to do is talk about it because that will retraumatize them, and other people the thing they must do to move on, is to talk about it"

I feel dismissed...and not heard. I have no idea what he thinks I'm like in a session with a client, so again I talk from my own feelings - and a safer domain.

I say - "I know that feeling very well - because there were all the things I couldn't talk about when our conversations were on Zoom"

Now a new possibility arises, a new thought. Perhaps it was a good thing that I didn't speak openly? Perhaps he would have moved my words around into something referencing developmental theory, and he would not have heard and reflected my feelings and thoughts, and missed entirely the power, terror, anger, sadness and the glory of our family's tragedy? 

He continues - "But in this conversation I see the same process happening again, there is slippage which is moving, rather than keeping focus which I think is why you asked me last week to talk about this or perhaps there is resistance about talking about it because you described yourself as being more person-centered, and a resistance to talking about theory like this"

We are not talking!

One of us lectures, the other subverts and diverts towards something leftfield to avoid being spoken at, trying to shift things into dialogue.

But what's happening is - I  am talking from my own experience - my college tutor is Gestalt trained, and so we are taught to take a subjective, phenomenological approach. Which is a very Gestalt way of working. I have come to value and respect it. What I'm not doing here is agreeing that therapy is all about the therapist meeting the child in the client. I don't disagree with him, meeting the child in the client is part of it, but there is much more.

I say - "No, the problem is...there is a gap - a problem in therapy about talking about the real, and external. Looking at  Rogers 19 propositions, there is an emphasis on a person being able to integrate the totality of an experience and psychologically something that can't be looked at can eventually be looked at. But very much in therapy the focus is on the negative, and a person also brings the positive"

He says - "But that's a different issue surely? Talking about theory in order to get an assignment done"

I obviously don't want to talk about theory to get my assignment done! And in truth what I've said is what I believe, that the work of therapy is to enable someone to integrate the totality of an experience, which means finding a way that something that can't be looked at can eventually be looked at! I wonder what that could be in the context of our discussions! And as I have so much Gestalt in my education, I have come to see all interaction - especially with someone else who is committed to increasing their self awareness and emotional intelligence - all interactions as opportunities for knowledge and growth! We have the perfect opportunity - both of us - to learn so much here. But hey, it's OK I don't even know where to start with the 'a different issue entirely' .I'm feeling too shaken and trying to swim through a rising tide of panic. 

I say - "I don't need to be told theory to get my assignment done. I can do theory to the nth degree!"

And this is true, I keep forgetting that I'm good at theory, I keep forgetting that I'm OK. A part of me is still in the living room, headphones on, listening to the band who cancelled - and hoping my son isn't going to start smashing things. I keep forgetting that despite my son smashing things, I passed my assignments in year one. So the probability is - without the omnipresent fear of random acts of violence happening around or to me - I will be able to write pretty well!

He says - "Yes but we didn't do it last week"

I have said in effect 'I don't need this', yet he's continuing. So I take a different path. I try to attribute the pointlessness of his endeavor (as he has clearly gasped the truth that to educate me is impossible) to the esoteric nature of our assignments.

I say - "Also it is quite difficult to work out what is meant by the criteria (given as part of the assignment)"

Our assignments had to be explained by the tutor who marked them, only then would we know what that tutor wanted us to include and cover!

He says - "The same thing happened when we talked about games. I think I started out by saying what do you understand about games theory and you weren't really quite there, and I never got to say because we kept getting side tracked. This is something that keeps happening. Why does that keep happening. Why do we have a focus that you decide on but then we never get there?"

Right then, let's talk about how phantasy is a concept relating to soul and body, or all the other far more interesting things humanity has woven from dream and memory! He has after all interrupted those tangential explorations of ours! But I'm still trying to pass on to him the strangeness and unique quality of my college's Diploma course! 

Me - "But I know a lot more about the assignment because of what I heard in class last week - the wording is ambiguous - so I asked my tutor"

He says - "But I think what they are getting at and I think this is really important is - and let's take a step back - it is impossible to do therapy without a theory"

I say truthfully -"I don't have a problem about theory" 

He replies -"And you said solution focus doesn't have a theory - well it does. If you go on the basis that an open welcoming environment and a person is free to explore, to use the really brutal Rogers shorthand - to actualize - then the theory is..."

The gauntlet has been thrown down!

I say -  "Of course there is theory! The no theory means that the client isn't given a model, we don't offer theories. But if someone came with a self-help book, or believed that they knew why they were experiencing things, I use their theory "

From a postmodern perspective (and there is 'our theory') context is all. Our theory is that we create reality through words, how we talk about reality really matters...

He replies - "There will be times when the client is utterly lost, and if you offer them a framework it really, really helps. So for example one of the two frameworks I use, the TA framework the most habitually of all again and again, and I'll see a client is lost and I'll say 'here's a framework, what do you think of it?' and they can always say no. But, there's 'true self and false self' that's one, in terms of having needs met / not having needs met - going through the world saying 'this is me, I'm OK with this or actually, 'me - this is not acceptable'. There's the false self front (Winnicott).  Parent / Adult/ Child model, and Drama Triangle. They come up again and again, and I see a client in front of me, I can almost visibly see the light bulb go on above their heads -'Oh! That's why I keep doing that! That's why I keep going back, he comes back pissed at 3 in the morning. I undress him, put him to bed and  he wakes up 2 hours latter and he starts pummelling me and I forgive him because it's not really his fault - because I'm a rescuer, and he's a persecutor except when he turns victim!' Just simple frameworks like that can be literally life changing. So, I just want to put a question mark, and I absolutely want to be clear - we are not saying to the client 'Of course, you are doing this' we gently offer it and say 'how does this sound? We keep the client in the driver's seat. Does that make sense?"

And I don't have the energy to say anything except.

Of course it makes sense.

He - "So do you want to go to the...what do you want to do about the 19 Propositions?"

I am exhausted and beaten. 

My thought is: OK, let's do theory, I assume that this is what he wants to do! We are not going to do truth because I'm scared of his reaction. Because we are already in conflict. He has a need to be heard and to fulfil the role of teacher (I am assuming this, by the way, I don't know...) and I want to speak from the heart...but when I access my feelings or speak from my personal experience he feels that we are going off at a tangent.

And, you know that there are five styles of dealing with conflict...which of course we could link to states of the autonomic nervous system (Ventral, Dorsal and the other one! Polyvagal theory) but hey - not now!

1. Avoidance, 
2. accommodation, 
3. competition, 
4. compromise or 
5. collaboration.

I ponder briefly is this me accommodating or compromising, or am I competing? How is it that I feel like I have to compete, in order to get us in to collaboration - and to be honest this is the underlying 'game' of every session!

All righty then, I fire up the 'intellectual' core - let's play philosophy!

Me - "..there is an implied sense of autonomy in here - but he (Rogers) never uses the word autonomy - it is as if he juxtapositions autonomy against responsibility"

He - "Not juxtaposed I think. The two have to go together and...

Me - "For the good..."

He - "So for example not knowing - I'm not sure if I know where you want to go with this? The first thing I thought was - the client has more autonomy than the therapist always. The client can go and talk to anybody they want to about anything thing they've said in therapy - the therapist can't! And the client can spread themselves all over social media, pictures of them when they are drunk. and if a therapist does that they are bringing the profession into disrepute. but also you know, the therapist is obliged whatever they do to have the motivation that this is for the benefit of the client. It doesn't have to benefit the therapist at all, ever. So it is quite, quite different"

"The client can go and talk to anybody they want to about anything they've said in therapy." I take my authority to write directly from his statement.

Me - "But it's about fostering autonomy, because I'd say that inherent in the 19 Propositions is the concept of autonomy. Therapy requires a person to feel safe and secure enough to be able to face things that are scary. So, to have self mastery which is control leading to inner autonomy - So I'd say that inherent in the 19 is a sense of allowing a person to understand 'internal locus of evaluation' leading to a similar concept; autonomy. So it seems to me to be quite close - autonomy and internal locus of evaluation? That sounds like a question!"

He - "But I'm wondering - autonomy as distinct from what"?

As well he might! Because I'm not sure what I'm saying either. Nevertheless I am very clear about what gets in the way of autonomy... 

Me - "Coercion. To use a TA kind of concept - feeling-thought is 'I never want to go to that place!' but then the internal  Parent is 'Well you've got to do that!' and the inner dialogue misses out the Adult (middle) who says 'I can and I can't but I will weigh the situation up'. So that's an internal coercion."

He - "So that's a wonderful illustration. The Adult ego state is the only autonomous one"

Me - "So it (Adult) is supporting, and allowing the energy of the other two (Parent and Child ego states) to play? Inherent in the 19 Propositions...I don't like to use the term 'self-actualization' I imagine angels and bells and a stairway to Heaven, because it is a lofty term. But, to be aware of how one really feels about stuff fosters autonomy.

Every single memory of any event is reconstructed in the here and now. Therefore each character in the Drama triangle is only us, when we replay and remember. But what we do next to create the future is constructed through recombining, modifying and rearranging memories to visualize a different future. 

And nothing here in my way of understanding this conflicts with Balint and his basic fault, or attachment theory, or any other theory for that matter. And I'm trying to impress him, I know that. And I probably just sound mad.  And I don't understand why I so much, so need to really know him. 

He - "And while you were talking something hit me with great force - your history, thinking oh...is this in the background somewhere. Your experience (sectioning) with your son is the very opposite of autonomy. 'You must do this and if you don't you are non-compliant. It has the force of law behind it. So this is a real contrast to that. and if I'm hearing it right, what you are saying about autonomy may also be seen in terms of respect. I wonder if another way of talking about autonomy might be respect, respecting the client, giving the client their own voice seeing them as a separate person - back to autonomy again rather than an extension of the therapists process and will - respecting the client's own process and will"

Me -"Yes, that's very well put"

He - "Which goes I think with exactly what you were saying about theory, that if it's ever going to be used it needs to be in the service of the client rather than opposed upon them - like in psychiatry 'here's your disorder!' But it also fits in exactly with <pause>1950s/1960s radio broadcast, true self false self?"

Me - "Winnicott?"

He - "Yes, Winnicott talking about the holding environment. That's what it is isn't it, it's valuing the client. In the holding environment it's saying 'you can grow here, which again we are back to Rogers aren't we" 

And on we go - and we are getting on so well! Until proposition number 11. This was the beginning of a real problem.  

Proposition 11:

"As experiences occur in the life of the individual, they are either...

•  a) symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self, 
•  b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure, 
•  c) denied symbolization or given distorted symbolization because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the self." [Carl Rogers]

He - "In psychodynamic terms, a) is transference.

Me -" symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self. Symbolized is transference, are you sure? Because in my understanding symbolized represents the healthy version of processing experience. So, b) ignored or c) denied are especially relevant in psychodynamic as an error. I think a) symbolization is the healthy one...I believe"

He - "Well, not necessarily - if for example if one has the experience of never being listened to, being ignored by parents, then that becomes symbolized. What's very, very likely to happen they will look out for people who are not listening to them, and replay that. 

Ah, not symbolized - this is ignored or denied, stuck, unprocessed - the unconscious mind is trying to resolve thorough conflict (see the five styles!)! This is the very foundation of why therapy works, and why a therapist collaborates to enable change! 

Whatever!

Me -"Well this goes back to what I understand about language, that language is a set of symbols - that there is no intrinsic meaning to a word or letter, and we share meaning through having experiences broadly in common."

He - "But I don't think he is talking about language here

Me - "I don't understand...everything is a symbol, meaning is constructed..."

Therefore everything we experience is technically transference! Everything we perceive is seen in terms of what we already know, and what we know is memory. Curiously we are now on the same page...

He- "Well essentially I think he means the same thing that Stern means when he talks about RIGs - representations of interactions generalized - 

Me -  Reading Proposition 15.

"Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of self...

 So you are saying I think, symbolized means not really integrated?

He - "A symbol is just an internal representation, so for example if ...just think through a really unthought through response a child might have. so, Mom is in the habit of beating the child with a rolling pin to punish the child. So Mom always has a particular look on her face and goes marching out of the room  to fetch the rolling pin when the child is in trouble. So now the child has symbolized it; when Mom looks like that, when she walks like that the child knows she will be punished. One day this child is in school and the bell's gone oh, it's 9 o'clock and oh, no teacher, and now it's 3 minutes past 9 and the teacher comes rushing in the room which reminds the child exactly of when the mother is going to get the rolling pin. This child is cringing and falling into themselves  and is getting ready for the beating. Because the child has symbolized the beating in that way"

Me - "So the child has an inexplicit theory, the child can't actually say what it is, but something has happened and the child feels...and maybe  if he could sit calmly he could bring to mind  the way the teacher moved reminded him of his Mom...like my lecturer who looked like my husband, he looked like him, moved like him...But I thought symbolized was what people needed to do with memories that couldn't be thought about safely. I mean I think I know what you are saying but I don't think that is what he (Rogers) means"

He - "It's about sitting in front of somebody and trying to absorb and understand their world, and what the world means to them"

Me - quoting Proposition 13:

"In some instances, behavior may be brought about by organic experiences and needs which have not been symbolized. 

I think Rogers is using the word symbolized as a positive.

He -"Well for example, it's almost midday and time to eat, and when I eat I don't have any particular strong feelings around eating. I eat because I need to eat. It's not been symbolized, whereas if i was sitting here thinking I need to eat, I'm ravenous I can't even focus on what I'm doing now, that may be symbolized, that may be because...

OK, going to break the 4th wall. This is me writing in 2023: I hear a lot of the same thing in his examples, in almost every session, and it is relevant. And significant. And when he said 'you know about me....' And I did, and instead of offering empathy I acted dumb because I was in the client's chair.. I couldn't bear the thought of him seeing my love, I couldn't risk him knowing that I listened, heard and felt. I simply didn't have any permission to be myself in his room.

And I wish I hadn't pretended not to know. 

I wish I'd been braver.

I should have been myself...

But I know exactly why I made it look like I didn't care enough to know.

But I am truly, truly sorry.

For me, having to be a client in this situation was a crucifixion, I couldn't move or breathe. I couldn't reach out. I knew this couldn't end well.

Learn to Swim! 20th September 2021.

I talk about what happened - I'd been on a trip to Arron. I'd got tickets to see the band that got me through my son's psychosis. They cancelled. I looked for my lost daughter in the streets of Glasgow. I couldn't find her.

He's asking me, 'what was it like?' 

One more Portal map, one more weaving straw into gold, one more challenge that appeared to be impossible. And I got through with out breaking or crumpling or giving up!.

He says - "It's still very present isn't it"

I say - "Is it? The memories are clear - present? It is unfinished. But it's me doing the best I can do..."

He says - "So why is there a problem now"?

What? If I hadn't talked about where I'd been - I'd be talking about the endless writing assignments nightmare that is college! I'm not here to process my expedition to the North. I was only sharing my adventure. In my family the recitation of disasters was a thing, the more awful the event, the more heroic is the teller of the tale! 

Regardless I stay with his 'reality'.

I say -  "I would like more, the music to play and the credits to roll. For everyone to say to me 'well done'. No one says well done!"

He says - "Who would say ' well done'?

I have already said it - no one will say 'well done'  - those were my words! My family is shattered, the people who would have said well done, are gone. So I answer with who I would like to say it, and I say how much I deserve the well done! 

He replies - "It doesn't sound quite enough"

I think it probably is!

At a certain point there is an invite to 'play philosophy' because I've referred to a 'self'. Philosophy is a game I enjoy. But I feel dejected and helpless after thinking about who wouldn't say well done! And this isn't good. 

Plus I've been told that what I say I want isn't really what I want (as it doesn't 'sound enough').

And then we are talking about institutional injustice and I feel that I'm hearing him when he says that sometimes it is the therapist's job to help a client write the letter to the solicitor, to support their choice to go to the police - or not...Now we are on the same page! And then away, and back via my assignment to where he started;  which is that in his opinion human development is all of what counselling is about.

So I say - in reply to his explanations about transactional analysis -"Seems so complicated - why don't you just ask the client what he wants?"

He says - "Because it wont work, they wont know - because all that will do is reveal the stuckness of the Child (ego state) 'well what I want is that but I can't do that because it will make me a bad person'"

I don't say - Oh, I'd ask them - 'I hear you say doing that will make you a bad person, but I'm wondering what it is about that thing you can't do or have, that would make your life better? - Instead I stay with his statement.

I reply - "I suppose I'd hope by asking that I'd get to the Adult "

He - "We can never get to the Adult - if the Child is standing in the way. The Child will scream and shout and stamp until the Child is satisfied. Or until the Child has understood that this isn't going to get me what I want. But we have to address the Child.

Me - "How do you address the Child"?

He - "I would...I want to talk to the Child in the person sat opposite to me. so I might ask something like 'Yeah, but if I stand up for myself I'll be a really bad person' and I would say something like 'who told you standing up for yourself was bad'? And usually, sometimes straight away, we get there. and we talk about the implacable Parent, about the emotionally punishing Parent, and you locate where that comes from. Once it is located where it comes from, the Child is recognized. Once the Child is recognized, the Child can start to be happy. 'Oh you can see me now, I can relax now' and then we can move into Adult. I mean this is why this is why development isn't a bit of counselling, this is all of it. Because it is all developmental in the end. And this is why I say time isn't linear because all that stuff a person experienced as a child is what is called in Gestalt Unfinished Business' and it keeps sticking around until it is finished. And it can never be finished until it is recognized, and recognizing it takes work, it usually takes a lot of work. Usually its a bit like, the body going through the windscreen of a car. You pick out all the big pieces of glass that's easy, and then for weeks and months and sometimes years later, little tiny pieces that you never noticed before that had worked their way into the skin. That's what it's like - is this making sense?"

My view remains unchanged; acknowledge that life is complicated, embrace the truth that we are making it all up as we go along. We are all attempting to navigate the inevitable crashing rocks and stormy seas of life. Follow the energy, and trust in love.

But really, learn to swim!