"But you can't have resolution without understanding". 28th February 2022

I knock the door. Nothing happens! Feels like forever. I wait. He is making me a cup of coffee - before he opens the door. 

He sees my surprise! 

And says - "What, you are going to change your mind today? Well, I thought, you never say no so why did I need to wait!

As I sit down I'm saying that I've had enough of writing my assignments, that I just want to be 'let off'

He asks - "Is writing associated with coffee!"

I reply - "No, just my sense of time has gone wrong, and I'm out of sync, things happening at a different speed..." My voice trails away.

He - "So have you finished your assignments"?

Me - "Oh god, no. I wont be finished for ages yet. They are relentless, finish one, another begins"

And then I'm explaining how our three years of assignments are squeezed into two years. I am exhausted, and on the verge of being insane. And I'm talking about Unit 13, counselling children and how much I dislike  Erik Erikson (stages of development) and transitions.

I explain again - "The art is to work out what the tutor wants, how to make it fit what I think the question means and fit the two together."

He - "Hmm, yes...unfortunately unless you do a Phd...you are not allowed to have a mind of your own. You are not allowed to use your own brain cells....What's wrong with Erikson?"

Erikson - Erik - describes age related life challenges. Even when we did this in college we were in fits of laughter as we described our life challenges, not described by Erikson! Basically, life presents problems is all we are sure of. Erikson didn't stop with children. At my age according to EE I'm heading for the integrity vs despair challenge. 

Story of my whole life! 

Bring it on..

Me - "Nothing, but you know when you feel as if you have been force fed something. I know some people feel like that about The Archers  but I'm OK with the Archers! 'What, not the Archers again, how many times has that been on? Twice a day, BBC Radio 4"

He - "Yeah, but you don't have to write about The Archers - I presume!"

Much laughter.

Me - "Well, I don't know. They did get mentioned in a 'Safeguarding' once, the Helen and what's his name's story"

He - "Helen and Rob. Rob Tichenor"

Me - "Not Titchmarsh!"

He - "Yeah, that would be different wouldn't it"

And then we are talking about group dynamics. A tutor who asks us to 'to talk about the elephant in the room' and I for one was never convinced that there was an elephant. I always thought it was his thing, so he should name it!

He - "What modality is he?"

Me - already laughing in anticipation of the eruption. "You are not going to like the answer. It begins with a G"

He - "Oh, Gestalt! Oh when you said G, I thought you were going to say Jungian"

Why G for Jung - the J sounds like a Y, and Jung is young? He knows how important Jung was for me.

Me -   "Oh, don't you like Jungian psychology?"

He - "Well it's not Jungians, it is Jung really"

Me - "You don't like him? I would have thought that he would be OK, but Jungians might be a bit tiresome?"

He  - "I don't think I've ever met any Jungians in the flesh"

Me: "It takes so much money to be one!"

He - Well Gestalt is founded on conflict isn't it because the person who founded it was.."

I  describe how a rift was created in our class through a group exercise, and this rift was never healed - so -  my conclusion is that the sowing of mistrust and allowing feelings to be hurt is pointless!

And then he is describing Group Process - "Like being in a Quaker meeting, but with lots of shouting - you sit around, and there is no agenda, and somebody starts talking, and somebody responds and basically what you have in terms of ego-states is a room full of Children - with the emotional needs of children - and sometimes you have some Critical Parents, and so they clash with the children. and what you end up with, it's really interesting, there have been sociology studies about the way groups work. And they always come to the same thing, which is that groups work very well when there is a person who is considered to be the facilitator, and the group has a clear goal. And if you get a group together where there is no leader and no particular goal it quickly implodes - which is what happens in group process. So it is all entirely predictable. But this is apparently a must for a psychotherapy course which is at Masters level"

And onwards. 

Until I paraphrase Steve de Shazer:

"understanding a problem doesn't necessarily provide a cure.."

He says - "But you can't have resolution without understanding, you have to have cognition of something before you can act upon it?"

Me - "No, people need to know the outcome they desire - I don't believe I need to understand something when there is nothing I can do about the mechanism. It often hides a desire, such as 'if only that person understood - then they wouldn't do X'" knowing how to get to X, or what else could be X is it!"

I could have said that therapy works when a client does the problem differently and thus the whole problem dynamic changes. This sort of thinking drives him up the wall so I skim around and through the subject, keeping contact with the words alone, and I don't explain the real concept underneath. It is more important I synthesize something we can agree on. 

The truth is, I'm never going to have understanding of what he really thought about me, so just as well I can tell myself that outcome is more useful than knowledge...

He says - "But a person needs to understand their reaction"

Me - "No, I stop with need - what is it that you need in this situation. I think most of the time, things are actually simple - you can disagree with me it's fine"

He - "That is a very simple view, that's for sure. I think that the reality is often more complex"

I give an example and in so doing he finds that we are on exactly the same wavelength, just of course, our language is different...

I ask - "So do you know what the theory must be behind this group process, this arena, this gladiatorial contest"?

He - "What group process? I've asked several people who run psychotherapy courses 'What's group process for? What's the point'?  I've never had an answer. Only one person came up with something which was  an alleged answer, but it wasn't really an answer at all. And the alleged answer was; 'the sorts of things that come up in group process are the sorts of things that will come up in a therapy room. Well, that may or may not be true, except they won't come up like that; because you wont be in a room with twelve other people, you will ne one to one or two to one if it's a couple. You certainly wont be in this gladiatorial arena, you will expect empathy, you will  not expect attacks. It's completely a free for all, group process - it should not be a free for all in a therapy room because it should be a safe space. So all the context is utterly different , so as an answer it just doesn't work. And I said so and there was no reply.

Me - "Did you say it in group process"!

We both laugh.

He - "But I think the real answer is, because we have to, otherwise UKCP wont rubber stamp the course. But nobody can tell you what it is for"

Me - "Well it sounds like that is what our tutor is trying to create"

He - "It does remind me of Fritz Perls, who seemed to get a kick out of bullying his clients, and if they refused to be bullied he called them a phoney which was his sort of catch-all insult to anybody"

Me - "He was big on personal shame...But I understand where he is coming from and I would have liked to have had a few sessions with Perls because I think that he had a heart of gold. I know that you disagree with me!"

Much laughter from him!

He - "A heart of granite!"

Me - "Granite - no I don't think so. I think Carl Rogers had an iron fist under a fluffy bunny exterior"

He - "Really"?

Me - "Yes"

He - "Why?"

Me - describing Jungian 'shadow' theory - "Because like the kids who scared the grandparents because they looked like hell-beings, the scary is on the outside. You can see it. But the kid in the suit with the neat tie, he's the one you need to worry about. It's the ones who seem normal - they are the scary ones! So Perls, I think Perls was quite vulnerable in many ways"

He - "I'd like to see the evidence for that"

Me - "He was human, he was very honest about himself - he wrote about himself just straight"

He - "Hum!"

Me - "Willing to be vulnerable is what I'm saying, whereas I'm not sure that Rogers was so honest"

He - "Oh, have you read much Rogers"?

Me - "Yes. I have. Sorry Rogers I've had enough"!

He - "Mmmm - I'm still not sure where this..."

Me - "Where this is going"

He - "Where this whole exterior idea comes from"

It is pure Jungian!

Me - "I think that Rogers was psychologically quite tough. I'm not so sure that Perls was. I think Perls would break down quite a lot. Perls was very much about contact, and I understand that, I really appreciate that. And I think that Rogers took a lot from Perls  and twisted it slightly. Perls was writing before Rogers, and if you read the theories ...I'm looking at your quizzical brow! It is difficult without being able to show you the references. The whole contact with experience" 

He - "Perls...I think I've got no evidence that Perls ever did have any contact with experience at all"!

Me - "Such a sweeping comment"!

He - "No, really! If you read his works which are virtually unreadable"!

Me - "They are not, they are very readable"!

He - "If you look at the way he operated. Basically somebody being in a room bullying somebody. Calling them a phoney if they don't go along with him. That's not contact"

Me - "It is straight. Perls was straight"

He - "Well that's the word he used"

Me - " It is the word I'd use"

He - "Perls was not straight at all"

Me -  "Is it not straight to be..."

He - "The Gloria films - Perls says 'I manipulate the patient' that's not contact. And you can see how self satisfied he is, and you can see when Gloria for example gets very angry with him how he says something like ' yeah, that's it' or 'now we are in business' or something like that. He actually wants to rile her because he somehow thinks that this is therapeutic to actually poke somebody with a stick until they respond"

Me - "He would like her to realise that she is his equal"

He - "That isn't what he is doing. See what he does is, he basically calls her a little girl"

Me - "He does"

He - "Basically shaming"

Me -"He says 'Are you a little girl'? that's the point because she isn't a little girl. And from his point of view she is being manipulative, she's practically saying in body language, 'let me off I'm just a little girl' and he is saying 'are you?'"

He - "Compare with Rogers who saw the little girl in her and treated it with love. At one point she is talking about what a very, very difficult relationship she had with her father and always felt that her father disapproved of her, and he says something like 'I think you would be a lovely daughter to have' I mean, there's contact, I mean there's care and inclusion. Not poking her with a stick like Perls would do"

So much I could say; about the lack of contact with me when I've gone into feeling, with how I need honesty and truthfulness. This contact thing isn't going to be resolved.

I say -"But that's not the same thing as contact with her experience"

He doesn't get it, I'm not going to explain it to him. Contact is the immediacy and simplicity of the actual. For Perls, being able to experience what is new as new, is health! The contact boundary is the meeting place between the self and the world. The place where all expectation ends and experiencing begins - and this is where all psychological growth occurs, at the edge of the known, the beginning of knowing the unknown. Challenge in Gestalt therapy is important - to let go the security blanket of ideas that even though they might not be nice, they are familiar. But they can be changed. Perls would and did, challenge that security blanket in Gloria. Rogers didn't do that...

Me - "Instead of taking her deeper in to those feelings about her father, Rogers was colluding with her"

He - "No, Rogers was taking her into something new, into a relationship she had never had with her father. And what happened some years later - or a year later - she continued a life long relationship with Carl Rogers and they used to meet up occasionally and wrote lots of letters to each other. And I think that she used to address him as my therapeutic father. And the seed of that was that client and the Gloria film! That's therapy! Not 'I'm going to pin you against the wall and slap you about and if you don't submit I will call you a phoney"!

My heart is aching as I type this. Why were my needs for contact  - in the Rogers and Gloria sense - ignored and dismissed. Why did he treat me as if what I'd said was totally out of order. The paradox is, he reminds me of Perls. But Perls had a better grasp of the workings of the human heart. Why doesn't it cross his mind that talking about maintaining contact with Gloria, accentuates the pain of not responding to me - or rather my feelings? Because I don't play little girl, I guess? And he didn't remind me of my father. 

But he would have liked that more - if I'd been a 'vulnerable' 'little girl?

Doesn't make any sense to me!

And I'm saying again - "I would have gone to see Fritz Perls - it is hard to explain, because I do know Gestalt theory - but seeing him, not knowing the theory, because I agree with him that whatever it is that you are in, that's what you are in - and it isn't about the past - so, be it! It isn't about deficits and a need to be reparented (reparative relationship) . With Perls it is about finding the block, there is something about the experience you have not 'got' and you need to get that (whatever that is). Be it, embody it, fearlessly.

He - "Well that is deficits isn't it"?

Me -"Embodying it - it's not a lack - it sounds like your model is about deficits because a person needs to get an experience they have not had - so Rogers saying in effect 'I am the good father - now you are getting the good father experience'. With Perls it's 'You haven't got a good father, that's the way it is' there is no recovery by me, from me ' I'm not your father but I am with you as you feel what that is like - because you can get over it and through it. It is all of you and what you are'

He - "How can somebody get over and through being bullied by Fritz Perls" 

Me - "Yet it sounds like it is normal in group process, to allow people to bully other people"?

He - "That is what happens in group process, yes...and clients will come with a whole range of conflicts which they will enact before you in any way. The last thing that they need is someone trying to stir up additional conflict. That's not therapeutic. What is therapeutic is care, consideration; a safe space in order that they can air their internal conflicts in a safe environment and understand them better"

And there is a lot of laughing together at this point.

Me - Let's say Perls is like the 'Protector' Mahakala, and Rogers is like Chenrezigs - but different people require different therapists. 

He - "I'm just remembering times when clients have come with massive, massive levels of conflict which sometimes - even couples, come to think of it, only with couples- that will erupt into the room. After all the smiles, after twenty minutes and if there is conflict there it will be in the room. And of course the conversation has to be had that goes 'that's not how we are going to do things' you know <laugh> and I'm just thinking, what would Perls do! He would be rubbing his hands with glee going ' now we are at it now we are in business'! But it's not helpful"

Me - "But I don't think it is like that, I don't think that is what he was after. When he said to Gloria 'are you being a little girl?' that is what he saw, and that is what he said. But for Perls it is all about power. He had a real distaste for people being bullied - it really angered him. So to see somebody playing it small, acting as a child.."

He - "But he was a bully"

Me - "...And he wanted people to tell him, to stand up to him, to say stop it!

He - "That's a complete lack of understanding of basic human interaction, it really is, that's woeful. Because if a client comes with a basic process of 'I am not allowed to speak for myself, my voice doesn't matter and I've taken this huge leap in trying to get my voice heard by going to a therapist' and then they are cajoled and bullied and backed into a corner - what's that going to do to the person! That's an appalling way to treat somebody. And the other thing in this is I see people all the time switching ego-states in front of me. Often from Adult to Child when we are discussing not necessarily their childhood, but I see them retreat into the Child-ego. And I can see them vocally, physically turning into a Child. And sometimes I say, most often I don't, particularly when I first notice it - because it would be too exposing. What I do is notice, and treat them with the particular sort of care that their Child needed, as I understand it. What I don't do is 'ha ha! Caught you out! You are a child aren't you. You little boy, little girl, whatever' no, that's bullying"

Me -"That would be you in a Child state, using Child language - 'haha caught you out'. He said 'Are you a little girl - are you'?

He - "Yes, but he didn't say it with care. He said it with a sort of playground bully sort of voice - 'aha got you' no, looking very, very self satisfied"

Me - "Because that would be the thing, like 'I've worked out what your problem is 'your problem - client is'...

He - "That's the thing that you hate the most!!! Oh my goodness! What's happening here. You have turned 180 degrees!"

Me - "I haven't turned 180 degrees. I simply disagree with your fundamental assumptions about me. I am saying that Perls - to paraphrase his meaning - 'I've caught it, I've noticed what you are doing - I've noticed your problem Gloria..."

He - "That's the thing you hate the most. That's what you have told me many, many times. Being categorized and labelled by the therapist who tells you what your problem is!"

Me - "Whilst missing my real problem. Going back now, in my situation it was a waste of time and I'm annoyed about that. Because when I say this is my problem - yes indeed  -this actually is my problem. Not what somebody else imagines it to be. What ever a client says is the problem, that's what the client and I will be dealing with first before anything else. What ever a person says is the problem, that is where we begin. We do not begin anywhere else, it has to be with what they say"

He - "Well again, that is completely contrary to the way that Perls worked."

Me - "I don't know. But what Perls had in his mind was, 'I've spotted it, I can see what she is doing. She wants an adult relationship, but she is acting like a little girl. and so I (Perls) am going to call it out - are you a little girl? 

He - "See there's the bully"

Me - "He was calling it out! Ah, yes! I see - it is a Gestalt thing 'the client wont break' it's not Rogers! The client can take it. I'm not convinced that that is true, I know that I can break. So I hope that you are not mistaking me for Perls, I'm not actually very Perls-like when I talk to people I am very much on their side and listening to hear what they are doing their best to tell me"

He - "That thing about the safe space - I mean, the best therapist is somebody who if you say I'm really stressed and I can't sleep at night because I don't know if I have enough money to pay the rent, lets say. And somebody who says I haven't slept for six days because I can't stop thinking about killing myself, then the best therapist is one who responded in just the same way to both statements; which is with calm acceptance. I can't see Fritz Perls doing that."

Me - "You don't know and nor do I. Perls. whose dying words were 'Get Off. let me do this myself!' I don't remember. But he was dying of cancer struggling to get out of bed and the nurses were pushing him back. I like that he was fighting to the very end."

He - "Wasn't there something about a chair? That his father hit him across the back and the chair broke, not his back and he was very proud of that. What does that say about him as a person!? No"

Me - "What sort of a person? It was a creative adjustment."

He - "Yes, that's one way of putting it"!

Me - "He adjusted his way of thinking about it, and ended up as the winner. He didn't give in to the bully"

He -"By becoming one"

Me - "But compared to many hospital consultants his behavior was tea-party at the vicarage level - compared to consultants"

He - "You are talking about psychiatrists"?

Me - "No, hospital, surgeons, in theater throwing bloody - literally covered in blood - swabs. So perhaps it is because I am habituated to de-escalating angry men, maybe that's it. Definitely part of the job!"

He - "How does anybody get away with that"?

Me - "Because the consultant is not replaceable"

He - "I do know it is a very macho world, being a surgeon. I mean you need to be a certain kind of person to just unzip somebody and saw bits off and take bits out and replace them with other bits. and I couldn't do it even if I had the dexterity to do so, goodness no"

Me - "It's one of those things isn't it, if I was the only person there, and I had more knowledge than anyone else in the room and something had to be done right there and then. It's hard! But then, to someone else, its a bit like when somebody is really upset - standing one's ground - not really standing one's ground, but not getting on the boat with them and going down, drowning in their story. Being able to understand that somebody is in a lot of psychological pain but the best thing for me to do now is just to be present, to be a calm presence. But I couldn't even give and injection to be honest! And people slip into objectification; seeing a person's pain as insignificant, it is a burn-out response. It happens. Then their pain is something just getting in my way. I came close enough to that state many a time because in the NHS there wasn't any space to be the other side (empathy) no space to be somewhere quiet and embody the physical upset of the real experience. And this is why I respect the work of Perls and Gestalt therapy; the Gestalt concept that a person doesn't actually know the impact an event has had on them because there is no space to, and we are in a culture that doesn't acknowledge the wordless distress that is part of responding to someone who has been badly injured. I used to work weekends on-call - Friday evening to Monday morning - so I would go to bed but I would be randomly woken up and get called in. So I couldn't switch off, and we worked alone, so it was only me. I never knew what I was going to get. Doing NAI work - non-accidental-injury  - when a child is brought in and the registrar suspects that the injury wasn't accidental I'd need to X ray the child to demonstrate previous, healed injuries'. Well, parents would be suspicious. That was vey tough. There was a robbery one night...I've no idea where I was when it happened! Probably I'd left the department unlocked when I went to ITU...So yes, patients who were in a lot of physical distress from fractures or haemorrhaging, bowels in a twist - literally - pain was normal. But working alone, a sense of actually being in danger. I used to plan how I'd lock myself in the dark room. But there was no concept of putting all this stress down, of sharing it in a safe way with others. No safe way to feel the impact. In the NHS an emotional reaction is something to be ignored and left to get better by itself. For me that has been the biggest change in myself; coming from NHS to counselling, I seek contact with feeling without intellectualizing or believing myself to be weak. I think that I had to learn to intellectualize. It was a cultural artefact; and cultural artefacts are really interesting aren't they. So you had this group process where people create a hell-realm of issues that can't be voiced in a straight way because of the criticism. What was driving the criticism in group process? 

He - "Well this is why I say it becomes a room full of children, in TA terms because the criticisms are always based upon a projection based upon that person's experience of their parent or their family. so, if someone has unresolved issues with their dad they will pick somebody in the room to be their dad and be very angry with them for reasons that don't make much sense until we understand 'ah, you think this person is your dad' on a level that you don't understand"

Me - "Do you think that person may have said something like the dad may have said"? 

He - "That's what is usually happening in my experience. And there is no motive to resolve it" 

So, zero contact with real emotion or feeling. One of us is failing to understand that grief is loss, and that the person who has lost their beloved cannot help but search wide and far, until the beloved's lifeless body may be taken care of, buried and life begins again...  writing this is my equivalent.

A discussion on the meaninglessness of syllables. 21st February 2022.

Grey skies.

Rain.

I want to write to him and say...surely it doesn't have to be this way.

For my heart really is breaking.

He - "Hello -The usual"?

Me - "The usual."

Then questions about heating and lighting -I sigh. 

I sound beaten.

Done...

It's over.

And I say - "I keep meaning to bring fairy lights..."

He - "Is it that dark! Fairy lights in the therapy room. it would be like Christmas everyday wouldn't it"

Me - "The ones at home are just little stars on copper wire"

He - "Be nice if it was a children's therapy I think"

Me - "Hmm, children would interact with them - but by 15 years old, it would probably be OK"

He - "Yes - but a 15 year old would probably consider them childish"

He asks about my assignments, I talk about comparing the three modalities of psychodynamic, humanistic and CBT. We now seem to be at crossed purposes. He is arguing that CBT isn't on the 'same par' as psychodynamic or humanistic modalities, because it derives from behaviorist theories. And also...

He is saying - "...Erm, there are cats there are dogs and there are - I don't know - koalas, well that's not the same because cats are a broad category, dog is a huge broad category, but koalas are marsupials, so marsupial is a broad category so, do you see what I'm getting at"?

Bizarrely as it may seem, I think I do. But this isn't significant. I don't set the assignments. I'd like to believe that the paradoxical and irrational nature of so much of our work at college is but a cunning plan, a way to condition our minds - like a psychological hair conditioner - to erase tangles and make us smooth and sweet scented, to teach us to stop trying to put things into categories! He has arrived in his seat of power via a different route, but also he is beginning to sound like a true believer.  

Ultimately though, my college course inadvertently became the perfect primer for my future in postmodern therapies.

But meanwhile, this conversation is rapidly becoming a comedy

He - "So the marsupial koala is a kind of CBT thing, but saying koala instead of marsupial"

Me - "Yes, and it's not simple. There are lots of cross overs and parallels, divergencies. It is interesting and it is complex. But in college, we just have to write whatever our tutor believes"

He - "It's very sad if stringing together a whole set of stock phrases is going to get you marks"

When has it ever been otherwise! I go on to explain Tuckman's five stages of team development, this is part of our training and I don't know why I don't take seriously: norming, forming, storming, performing..

And Belbin...In Belbin world I'm a plant!

Me - "You may as well use astrological birth signs"! 

He - "How does this help you?"

Then I'm talking about the bouba kiki test which I think makes sense!

He - "Since they are nonsense words, how can anybody mark it?

Me - "Because it is consensus - it is about consensus reality. 

I respond to his expression.

Me - "No no no, it makes sense - because all language is consensus"

He - "No, meaningful language is consensus"

Me - "All language is meaningless until it has acquired meaning"

He - "No it isn't! 

Me - "Is it not?"

He - "To be language it has to be meaningful"

Me - "Not at first, it is sound that acquires meaning"

He - "Well any sound without meaning isn't language"

Me - "Exactly, but language can bring in other sounds to become language; new words - sounds - to become a part of the language. But originally, those syllables were meaningless "

He - "Well all syllables are meaningless because they are not words" 

Me - "But the sound of a word, words are made of syllables, has texture and often they fit in with pre-existing rules"

He - "No, this is nonsense".

Me - "No, because all you know of this is what you have understood from me and I possibly have not conveyed it in a way that conveys adequate meaning."

The thought it must be my fault that he doesn't understand indicates that I hold his intelligence in high regard.

Me - "Language can bring in other sounds, words that were originally meaningless and they become meaningful, they acquire meaning through context"

He - "Well all syllables are meaningless - they are not words - unless it is a word which is also a syllable like a.."

I hear the penny drop.

Me - "But the sound of a word conveys texture, and fits in with rules - perhaps pre-existing rules?"

He - "No, this is nonsense. Let me give you an example - degarlog - is that sharp, or it that dull?"

Me - "It's not sharp, it's kind of long with a rounded end"

He -  "It's neither, it's the name of a language. And a language can't be sharp and a language can't be dull"

Me - "It is a word that has a meaning already, but sounds have textures. And this question is about context, so the question does the word have dullness or sharpness remains salient."

He - "So all the words in this test have to be words for objects that don't exists"

Me - "But they do exist insomuch as seeing the symbol; the words on the webpage have meaning via conversion from the retina of the eye into synapses firing in the brain, resonating with a whole set of pre-existing memories encoded in synapses"

He - "How is this helpful"

Me - "How is this helpful"?

I refrain from saying - well, there was the tiny table last week remember? And one of us is willing to talk about how they feel, and what is going on. One of us is able to be completely honest and speak from the heart- whilst the other says that he's not allowed to speak! How am I so powerful enough to be able to stop you from being able to speak? 

I don't say this only because I think he'd hurl me out of the metaphorical plane we are in!

Me - "I think it is an interesting subject. I think it does fit my concept of what somebody who makes - is it social mistakes - in terms of being unable to pick up nuances of tone of voice and language. Some people aren't so good at it - picking up nuances in how words are said, and body language. So there is something about this being able to convert, or rather, to be in accord with the majority"

And this is heresy, for those who see the natural human capacity to be conditioned by others as the great problem! I'm describing mutual conditioning as how we create shared worlds.

Me - "It seems an interesting test"

He - "So people are judged under a majority verdict which in itself is a logical fallacy because the majority view isn't always the correct one, on what a word sounds like, that aren't really words, they are just meaningless vocalizations. So there is no actual right answer , and yet people are judged on a scale. It makes no sense! I must be autistic based on this!" 

Me - "You don't know, you have not done the test" 

He - "Well I know I'm not autistic, but I do know that this is nonsense" 

Me - "No, I'm not sure that you do know that this is nonsense, because all you know is what you have understood from me and I may not have conveyed it accurately. You would have to judge for yourself through exploring it."

Do I feel that he is prejudiced against this information because I'm the one saying it? 

Yes, I do.

He - "It also suggests, if your last example is right, that there is a real connection between people's understanding of nonsense non-words and their social skills"

To be honest, that's just a guess that I'm making!

He - "And I don't think there is a necessary connection"

Me - "Social skills? I mean consensus (resonance) between people; through understanding the tone, the feel...I mean the word ' slithy' does make sense. And 'brillig', it does make sense.

He - "But we can't define the words because they are nonsense"

Enough!

He - How does this give us any useful information"?

Me - "Define useful"

He - "Something which is of practical consequence, something that increases the store of knowledge in a falsifiable way"

Me - "It is fun!"

He - "So no to all of the above"

Me - "Is fun testable? I suppose there may be a way to test fun, do you think?!"

He - "Well that doesn't really - it doesn't lead to knowledge"

Me - "So you are saying fun has to be useful or that fun isn't useful? But fun can lead to knowledge, and you are saying that knowledge is information that has to be useful"

He - "But putting meaning to meaningless sounds, how does that get us anywhere?"

Clearly a man who has not played Myst.

Me - "Getting anywhere? Where are we supposed to be getting to"?

He - "Well the whole thing was predicated wasn't it, on giving us information about meaning, about sound and language and something to do with personality. It doesn't tell us anything about that"

Me - "I disagree, it has given us loads of information.....because a significant number of people agree that word x indicates a rounded object, and word y indicates a sharp object " 

He - "Lets reframe the question - does it tell us anything useful about the world that is worth knowing"

Me - "Worth knowing is a value judgment - you might not find it useful, or valuable but somebody else might. I don't know" 

He - "I can't imagine who that person would be!"

And then I'm talking about Tulvig and  George Herbert Mead, and how the autonomic nervous system effects memory and timelines and how I am playing with time as I use language - changing the past in the present, by talking about the future by bringing experiences from the past. 

After I'd been talking about how I follow the energy more than meanings of client's words, he is talking about getting in touch with forbidden feelings - how people feel that to do so will break them but.."It never does" So, what were his feelings?

And what's going on here, and what happened? There was a lot of laughter...I think we get on, I also believe that he can't abide me. All I know is, I'm trying to convince him that I'm his equal, that I'm unique, that I'm good to be around so that he doesn't want to say goodbye to me - ever. Underneath all this is the reason why I set out to be the therapist who can wade into a family dynamic and  reflect back the hope and genius of each person I talk with. 

It makes me sad to write this, contacting a deep pool of sadness and need for him. I had the good sense to keep my eye fixed on the distant horizon seeking any star to trust as my True North. I couldn't metaphorically look down. I couldn't consider that I wasn't good enough to win. The awfulness of this situation; his insistence on dogma, evoking the  'Ethical Framework'  as for my protection was enough for me to know that I'm powerless. I'm being crucified...Yet I believed in myself and so there were but two options - to fight, or to die.

Death had started this.

It was always going to be a part of this.

The horror of the rail tracks set my course, by level 5 Death followed me through the darkened corridors of the hospital. Death was waiting for me each time in psychosis my son directed his rage and terror at me. Death was always there. Death was closest to me the evening before my husband was about to be beaten up by her husband. I didn't care if I lived or died. Something had to break...I had had enough pain, fear and condescension, more than I could take. Only the thought of what allowing my death to happen, of making it happen, would be like for my children kept me here. And now, loss and more grief - if I let him throw me out. 

This charade of client - therapist has to end.

The tiny table. 14th February 2022.

 

"See that's what I see as a potential sticking point. 

In the sense that normally in this space, nothing is off the table really"  [LINK]

He - "Light on or off"?

Me - "It is fine"

He - "Leave it on - there is plenty of sunlight - just not in here. The sun is over there"

Me - Pointing in the opposite direction. - "Over there..."

He - "Is it?- OK?

Me - "For sure"

He - "It's not bending around the corner - So where are we going today?"

Me - "I thought I'd bring the table"

I retrieve a miniature table from my bag.

He - "The table"?

Me - "There it is, there is the table"

He - "I'm confused - is that a table for elves, it is very small.

Me  - "It is a symbolic table."

I put it on the floor between us.

I say: "There, the table has been placed - for things to be put upon"

He - "I'm still none the wiser"

Me - "OK, no it is OK, I never expected you to understand it. You said something about 'not being able to put things on the table'.

He - "which table are we talking about?

Me - "Ah, it is your metaphor - not mine"

He - "I don't remember saying that"

Me - "That's fine if you don't remember - but it is your metaphor - about 'not being able to put things on the table. So there is the table, to openly put things upon"

Silence.

He is blushing...

Me -"As in 'it might be difficult to talk' - without being able to 'put things on the table'"

He -"See I don't know what the table is, and I don't know what the things are - so I am still none the wiser"

Me - "So the things are all potential, they are not solidified into actual words yet....This is a symbolic gesture. The table exists, and so things can be placed upon it"

He - "OK....um"

I echo his tone of voice.

Me - "Um..."

I get my journal out of my bag.

Me -  "No time for introduction really....um...today - because of the date -  feels like one of those days, like when I took my car into be serviced and car they lent me was a white Golf with darkened windows; the same car - though not exactly the same car - as my husband's. The car he used to have sex in with her...and I just said 'wow, thank you! A Golf'. But thinking how cruel fate can be sometimes. Today is Valentine's day - and thinking of the recording I gave you, around Christmas time; and this is an opportunity to talk about that. That is the table. The table 'that things couldn't be placed on' . Well, there it is - because I'm not the sort of person who can't 'put things on the table - I don't like there to be a gap - I like processing to take place"

He - "So what is it that you want to talk about"?

Me - I don't know what I want to talk about. The table is there - it means that there are no, no-go areas. I don't want to cover anything up. I could put some music on instead - because I don't know what to say, but I don't want to cover anything up"

My instincts tell me that if I say - I need you to tell me how you feel - this will not be good. The recording was a 'disclosure of my feelings' and it was as open and as honest as I could be. He'd said that normally everything could be talked about in therapy ' put on the table'. 

Right - here's the table, the one you said that you couldn't put things on. 

Dare to be honest with me! 

Everything is telling me that I am only a problem. I'm no longer a person. There is a possibility that he had had feelings for me, and killed them. If that is so, well - no need for an autopsy, cause of 'death' is well understood here. But knowing would help me make sense of why I fell for him...

I am stuck, clearly still in pain.

I believe this enactment of an avoidant-defensive response is unethical. 

We are taught that non-disclosure is part of our job, but on the other hand, as therapists it is up to us to dig deep into 'our therapy culture' and ask ourselves, why do we do what we do, and is this the right way here and now? Instead here we are, fixed like flies in amber, trapped in our roles; in this room I feel crucified, nailed down. 

He isn't going to be open. 

But I've recovered enough from the last four years and so I am doing what I do best, 90% of my attention is engaged in listening to hear around and between his words, trying to sense the ripples and eddies of his emotion - He says and will say "This is your space, your time" but I've asked for openness. Surely it is clear that I've been open, so it can't be that I want help or encouragement to be open - I think he is being obtuse on purpose, or even unconsciously. Regardless..

I felt as if my brave and constant heart was being squeezed dry, unable to beat, unable to receive oxygen. 

My request is dismissed. 

So I clarify, I retrieve the meaning...I try to make it explicit.

Me - "So your question to me was, after you said something like 'potentially this conversation could be quite difficult' was something like - 'so how does it feel to have told me about your feelings' and I remember saying something like, 'well nothing has changed for me', and you replied that something has changed may change because now you know. That distinction feels very important for me. I am just about OK with anything that happens in life as long as I know what I think and feel, and when I don't know what I think and feel I have to stop to work it out. So by the time you got the recording, and I was here - in this room - I knew what I thought and felt. But also I really don't like secrets and things to be hidden under the surface. You asked me how it felt to come into this room, to open the door not knowing what was on the other side. It was a decision that made sense, and so it was done. The alternative was worse, I might not like facing what is on the other side, but I dislike not facing it, more"

He -"So what is the alternative that you don't like more..."

~ sigh! "I dislike not facing it, more". I described the process, but not 'it'. Because the it I couldn't face isn't mine! I know what I feel. I couldn't take the sense of ambiguity, that he created. And and if I use that word -ambiguity - I am certain it will evoke an emotive reaction, and he will ask me about what I didn't understand, making out that I am just transgressive.  In his mind he was always crystal clear and by the book and there were no undercurrents or sotto voce words or... And if I imagined that he'd had feelings for me that can only be - in this defensive logic - because I'm transgressive, wilful, because it is something I just do as a bad habit! 

Keeping that view of his opinion in mind, I talk instead about how it feels to open the door and find out what is on the other side. To watch all I need and want and hope for, crumbling, burning, blowing away...just ash. To feel my skin crawling with a million scintillating insects, a mix of elation and terror, as I focus on the still centre of the whirlpool. 

I also tell him about the alternative I 'don't like more', enacted through avoidance. The alternative means I am lost, sucked down, drowning and panicking. Not being heard when I ask for the truth feels like confinement, being trapped; sensations and images of prison cells, of cold walls, of heavy chains.  Crushing.

Regardless, he hears nothing of what I've said, or he ignores it.

He tells me that he is 'a therapist' so he wouldn't do anything unethical. 

Ha, define unethical! 

This experience has taught me that it is unethical for a therapist to be avoidant and defensive. Whatever his actual feelings were or are, about me - they will not be made clear, and so they can not be faced. 

So what would have happened if I hadn't stepped back, and if I had said ' I need to know how you actually feel about me' ? There were so many things I couldn't say to him. I simply didn't feel strong enough to cope with another 'this isn't working for you and it certainly isn't working for me...' and being told to go and never come back.

But he is right, my feelings didn't just happen. 

I don't just fall in love with people!

My feelings happened because of who he is, let's leave it at that. But there were things he said when we first began to talk that caused me to wonder if he was attracted to me, and I had felt that he was crossing 'a line'! I certainly didn't feel attracted to him at the start, but after those interactions I looked again, with 'the safety off' and I started to see him  and then slowly I began to melt, and then to burn. I had honestly thought that he liked me, and liked me an awful lot to dare to 'cross the line.' 

Nothing could enable me to say anything about this to him right now! 

Without saying all this, nothing is going to be resolved. 

At this moment I don't think that he likes me at all. The table was my request that he respects my feelings instead of lecturing me about how to do therapy. 

And I cannot put into words exactly how important it is for me to know how he really feels... 

Love in this present moment, in his room, means to be open, and to be opened by each other. But I am being cast as a disorderly, ignorant strumpet. Perhaps I am! But I didn't fall for the therapist, I fell for the man. I think after two years, my view of him is pretty realistic and honest! I see him being a self-righteous prig, quite often. Truth is, we end up laughing. 

He has his fears, I understand that but not being open and honest with me at this time, so close to so much grief and loss in my life is potentially lethal - but he didn't spot that either. 

I don't often do regret, but now, so many hours, days. months and years away from him, I wish I'd said more. Whilst at the same time I trust myself, and it is impossible for me now to remember how constrained I felt in that room, how the roles of therapist/client created useless fetters and binds. I wasn't a client, end of. I wasn't there because I thought something in me needed to be elucidated...

At the time, my intuition said that if I'd been more direct in asking for his feelings, he would have asked me not to return. And as that could have killed me - I owed it to myself to keep away from that.

Nevertheless, I tell him as much as I can.

Me - "The alternative is to feed uncertainty. It isn't that I can't deal with ambiguity...but if there is information to be found, I'd rather have information. I needed to know what was on the other side of the door - and it always takes courage to do it. So how did it feel? What were the feelings associated with it? It was very similar to breath holds in Wim Hof technique, foot on accelerator and foot on the break. It feels like balance, dynamic equilibrium"

Interesting similarities there. Wim Hof method is the experience of going close enough to death, and staying in contact with the panic.

He - I'm curious about two words you said; ambiguity and uncertainty, because as someone training to be a counsellor yourself, and presumably having done a module on the professional body's ethics. You must have known where the boundaries are. So I don't know where the ambiguity or uncertainty is"

Wasn't I clear - didn't I say that I was asking for information? Surely in therapy there are no boundaries about what may be spoken of. Ambiguity does imply that I'd picked up on something. Now, can he own it, or not? 

But it feels too dangerous to describe how I felt about being called a minx, for instance.

I diverge and go full tangential!

Me - "So this reminds me of a different way of thinking about reality, this reminds me a lot of people saying that...well, you would have to be absolutely in sync with...to take it sideways...

He has asked me what I saw that made me feel that the situation could be ambiguous and uncertain. 

His defences don't allow this level of discussion. 

So, I'm being defensive through being discursive waffle.

It hurts . I feel lied to; when I believed that he had enjoyed talking to me, the way our talking reminded him of coffee fuelled discussions - I now see it as an act. Manipulative, the performance of twinship. 

For the record if he had said that he felt about me as I do about him, but also felt unable to alter his sense that any other kind of contact with me was wrong, that truth is far less painful that what we have here now.

And if instead he had said that yes, it was all an act, it was all Kohut and twinship and nothing I'd said was funny or interesting; and said - actually, know what, I think you are so stupid and boring'! I'd accept that and let go with a sense of relief! 

But if he'd said that he felt about me as I felt about him so let's go upstairs, I'd have said 'good - then you will wait for me for three years then we take it to supervision, and then we decide what is best! We have a situation to navigate, and love is worth that, he is worth that, and I know that I am worth that! 

Love is a sacred bond - and I don't see Eros as a problem - unless of course, its power is disrespected. And here I am in the unbearable situation of watching him rip its wings off...

I get back on track.

Me - So people can agree to things and think that things are OK, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are - is what I'm saying. And I've come across it many times, people thinking that they are doing the right thing and the outcome is cruel. There is no perfect ethical framework, we are human beings and human beings have feelings - and reality is reality. Dealing with reality is preferable to dealing with idealized versions of reality. I don't have the arrogance to say that I know what reality is, I find it through asking"

I'm asking for the whole picture!

He - I'm feeling stuck trying to understand the comparison.

Me - "This is about people agreeing to something that they think is OK and that there is no God given ethical code, only the code we sign up to. But reality is reality" 

The agreement to follow sacred rules is fundamental to the process of spiritual abuse. The rules are then twisted in a way that supports abuse. The perpetrators quote 'sacred law' to support their actions. 

He - "If you are part of an organization, the ethical code that defines your practice is given. and if one wants to change them, then work from within to have a formal agreement to change them or if that is impossible leave. but those are a given"

Abuse is acting in a knowing or unknowing way that causes harm, physical or mental  to others. There must always be an opportunity for mediation when a person has agreed to rules, but discovers that they are causing harm... 

Me - "Yes but there are human beings involved, and whatever is real is real"

He - "Yes, but I'm still not sure about this ambiguity and uncertainty. You must have known what my response was going to be"

Me - "No, of course not!"

He - "Really! but how could I behave unethically?

I want to say, 'look Kit, ambiguity and uncertainty are not dispelled by someone saying you must have known!'  And to go back to what is ethical and what isn't, the ethical code doesn't entirely rule out relationships, it asks that people think about them very, very carefully! Surely he is aware that the only way I could separate my attachment to him, from my construct, would be to give me the whole picture, to be genuine with me.

 

Me - "No, I did not think that you would behave unethically - but I had no idea what your response would be. There are more than two options. Well, there are many options within both those 'black and white' parameters!

He - "Well the response which is in line with professional ethics, and there is the response that is defiant of the professional ethics. You must have known that I was never going to do the second one"

Defiant? 

Feeling as I do about him is an act of defiance?

Well, alrighty then...

I believed that he would respond ethically and I was proved wrong. 

I'd assumed he would respect my request for us to 'put everything on the table'. 

I was wrong. 

Withholding truth creates an undertow which is uncomfortable and ultimately harmful.  

Me - "But there is reality and reality, and I cannot know until I know. It's not possible for me to know what I don't know! I can interrogate my construct of you, but it is only a construct. So I told you!"

He - "Well I don't know when it was, I'm going to say six months ago - and it was almost along the lines, but for some reason you brought up the ethical code that you were having all sorts of questions about - and I remember my line then was, it is there to protect the client, it is also there to protect the therapist and if you sign up to an ethical body you sign up to their ethical code, and that's it."

'My problem' was that I was talking about Brian Thorne and a move by the ethical body to make therapy a protected profession - so that if a person called themselves a therapist they would have studied an approved course, with supervision, and placement work. Brian Thorne's position was that signing up to a system may well "inevitably encourage uniformity and militate against creativity of practice" . 

At the time I thought Brian had a point. 

And I had said that other ethical codes are available.

 

Me - "And I said at the time it was as if someone had read "The Jewel Ornament of Liberation" or rather the "Quintessence of...." I can't remember the title, Tibetan text. A re-hashing of the six perfections, which isn't surprising!"

He - "Does it matter where it comes from"?

Me - "Yes, because the original is more complex and deeper, and in the Tibetan tradition reality is not taken as simple.

Brian Thorne's works includes a spiritual dimension, this is what I was getting at.

He - "I don't remember the bit of the ethical code where it states that reality is simple"

Me - "It doesn't say that, but it is saying that."

He - "I'm not entirely sure where we are going here, and what you want from this"

Me - "We are not going anywhere, and I don't want anything from this. This is an exploration. There is the table. You told me that things could not be put on the table, well there is the table and things are not being put on it!"

He -"And..?"

I side-step..

Me - "Well something has to be done within this period of time. I don't have a problem I need to see a therapist about. And here I am, so something has to be done with this time. And this is what is being done with the time"

He - "An impression of what exactly"?

Me - "Sorry"?

He - "An exploration of what exactly"?

Me - "Of what was not spoken of that day"

He - "And what wasn't spoken of that day"

Me - "All the things that weren't spoken of"

My turn to be evasive - I feel unheard and powerless but I continue.

Me - I think you asked a few questions, you said something like normally you would use your skills to bring the hidden things a bit more into the open"

He - "Yes, I was aware of two things very keenly that day; one, that you had put yourself in a very vulnerable position and I wanted to respect that by not treading on places that might have been too painful there. The other thing I was very aware of recalling, was that you were closing the way to a very particular type of exploration. Because you brought up the idea that your feelings might be transference in order to then dismiss the idea"

In his view I bring up ideas to dismiss them, and I'm tangential and contrary.

Oh, and defiant!

Me - "I dismissed the idea by looking at it - but if you now wish to go there, that's fine now, not at the time. Then it wasn't. All that 'diagnostic' theoretical, made me angry."

He - "I don't know how we could tackle the problem without having something you might call diagnosis"

Me - "Well you are welcome to diagnose,  if you wish"

He - "I'm still feeling a little at sea in terms of where you want to go with this"

Fundamentally I'm trying so hard not to be thrown out of the room - yet I have to try to find out what has actually happened.

I feel as if I have to walk forwards by walking backwards...

Me - "Well there isn't anywhere I want to go with this. I don't have the 'this is something to be solved' this is more about looking at what's there (here!)

He - "Well what's there is, that you were pushing at a boundary and I was maintaining it, essentially"

Me - "At that time, was I pushing? No, it wasn't a push, how was I pushing at a boundary? No, it was me saying, this is how it is"

He - "OK"

Me - "That isn't pushing at a boundary, it is a statement"

He - "OK"

Me - "So I believe...do you disagree?"

He - "Well I think giving me a memory stick with a recording of about 25 minutes, something about that. Um, telling me that you have been in love with me for a year"

Me - "Yes"

He - "It's pretty much pushing at a boundary when one person is a therapist and the other is a client."

Me - "Yep, you can leave it at that <again, I react to the tone of voice he uses. I feel a door being slammed and as if my fingers have been caught in the doorframe> But there has to be the acknowledgment that I do not see myself as a client. I am not incongruent, I am not here with a problem, .I am here because I have to have therapy as part of my course and I do with it whatever I do with it and I use it in the best way possible. But as in 'I've got a problem that I need to talk to somebody about' I am extremely good at partitioning. Because there is nobody that I can talk to about this! This is the only thing in my life that I would go to see a therapist about - therapy for my therapy - so this will be me sorting it out for myself."

A plea for help...I am going to have to try to do this alone and perhaps that won't be possible. 

A reassurance to him - saying 'don't worry' I am good at partitioning. 

Bargaining with him, I respect your obvious sensitivity, so please respect what I've just said.

So, this is past fight and flight, this is at fawning.

And fawning is the stop before - on the polyvagal underground - dissociation.

He - "Well you may not see yourself as a client, but you are here as a client because the course says that you have to be here as a client"

Me - "Yes it says that but it isn't possible to be a client unless I'm a client! 

He - "You are paying me money every week"

Me - "I have to" 

Or else I'd be disrespecting the value of your time and the contract!

He - "And you are sent by the college"

Me - "As part of my course I come here"

And because I'm in love with you, and I'm fighting for a relationship that works for both of us! That could just be the occasional email, because I value your opinion and intelligence. But underneath all this, the talk of Kohut made me feel used, made me feel that everything had been a great big lie. I didn't want to believe that anyone would be that deceptive towards me again.... Now therapy feels parasitic, as if I'm covered in leeches. 

He - "Yes, and you have signed a therapist, client contract."

Me - "Yes"

He - "So you can frame it in ...

Me - "Sure, superficially! but I'm not a client am I! How can I be a client unless I've got a problem that I chose to bring to a therapist? I can't see it myself!

He - "You do have the choice of not coming...but then the college."

Me - "Exactly"

He - "So you have to be a client"

Me - "Carl Rogers said for me to be a client I need to be present - and I am! I need to be incongruent and I don't think that I am incongruent! I wish I was - OK! I wish I had a problem! I can't think of anything that is that much of a problem! 

He - "Well there is some incongruence about the ethical code"

I feel like saying 'so now you have diagnosed me with Oppositional Defiant Disorder' hilarious!

Me - "No, there is no incongruence, not at all! But you feel there is incongruence?"

He - "Well, in the message, you were suggesting to me that I respond potentially in such a way that there is a dual relationship, it would be a dual relationship..."

Me - "It was already a dual relationship, from my point of view. I am talking about me - from my point of view, this is a dual relationship"

I was trying to un - dual it! 

He - "Completely unknown by me"

Me - "Yes, unknown by you"

He - "That's....I'm puzzled. so to have a dual relationship both people have to be in knowledge of it. You are having a relationship with me that I don't know about. That doesn't make it a dual relationship"

Me - "It does for me, I can only talk about me I can't talk about you! For me it is"

He - "You don't know anything about me, except for what you know from these sessions, You don't know if I'm heterosexual', or even single"

Me - " I know nothing, I agree!

He - "So that was a real risk, wasn't it"

Me - "A real risk? 

On the contrary! A simple I'm gay, married, whatever would have released me from imagining that he could want me too! I assume he is choosing to believe that I fell for his 'therapeutic kindness' - unable to see the real man. But I keep requesting to talk to the real man because the therapist is probably doing the manipulative Kohut thing! In this situation the psychodynamic refusal to show emotion, regardless of what a client says, and zero self-disclosure are doing what they were perhaps designed to do? They can create such psychic pain that the client begins to believe that there really is something wrong with them! The cynical view is, this is why therapy traditionally had to continue for years.... 

No - let's call it what it actually is. There is nothing therapeutic about stonewalling.

There is nothing therapeutic about avoidance. 

This causes harm, and it breaks the ethical duty to do no harm. 

He - "I mean not only personally you don't know those things about me, but also ethically. In terms of being on a course training to be a counsellor, and inviting me to break the ethical code if I respond in a particular sort of way"

Was I inviting him to break the ethical code? Was I inviting him to respond in a particular sort of way? I thought I was telling him that I loved him and that in the light of this, the way was open for us to decide what to do next! That the future could be seen differently, illuminated by the light of honesty.

Me - "It is up to you how you respond. Absolutely up to you. As it is absolutely up to me how I respond"

He - Hmm but what I'm getting at, the invitation was there, you could have chosen not to give me the invitation."

Invitation?

Me - "Then you would not know what was actually happening in terms of my feelings and what is real. And I don't know about you, but I need to know what is real. Because this is a serious thing and it is a deep thing, a heavy thing. And I don't like being split - I prefer you to know who I am. I mean this is as close as I've come to being a client - but honesty and integrity is it for me. But it wasn't an invite as such, though I don't remember my exact words now, but genuinely I think I only spoke about me - I 'own my own stuff'. I didn't say I want you to x.y or z, or even  I think you should do a or b. This is me, only about me. So no, of course I don't know any of those things, I don't know what is 'on the other side of the door' I don't know. But do I have the courage to find out? Yes, I do. Because why, because if I don't find out then I'm left with the fizz and the  mess, and I don't like that. I don't want that"

And that is exactly what he has left me with - fizz and mess. 

He - I'm still confused because I'm wondering about the reality of me being a therapist and following an ethical code, why that wasn't -"

Me - "Enough?"

He -"A reality that was foremost for you"

Me: "You ask me why would I not be truthful with another human being? You are asking me to accept you as a role, to see you in terms of your role rather than as a human being? I am seeing you as a human being!"

He - "I'm still really unclear. Because there was an invitation in that recording for me to respond. So there was the possibility that I might behave in conflict with my professional ethics , and I would have thought from previous conversations you would have known that I wasn't going to do that"

Me - "So why did I think that was a possibility? Well all things are possible, I don't know. I'm sorry but I'm just going to keep on with that I can't make a decision for you about what you think or feel or do. I can only tell you what I think and feel, sorry. But you ask why could I think that of you? Because you are a human being, that's all, sorry I will go back to that point, you are human, there! I can treat you as a thing, an object and say 'you are in the role of therapist, that is all that you are, that is your whole being' - like you seem to be saying, 'you are a client, that's the way it is'. And I was fortunate, I didn't suffer much sexism as I grew up, people treated me fairly, mostly. But on the few occasions when I have had a stereotype put on me I get quite annoyed by it. Stereotypes...I am what I am!"

He - "A therapist is my whole being - in terms of what I am in the therapy room"

Me - "Yes, that is not who you are entirely, or who you entirely are"

He - "Of course it isn't! But that's outside the ambit of anything a therapist is going to consider with a client to remain ethical!"

Me - "So what do you think, was that recording to you as a therapist, or to you as a person? That is a question. <silence> It was to you as a human being, a person"

He - "It was crossing an ethical boundary"

No, nowhere in the ethical code does it say "The client will strive to protect the therapist from his own fears and triggers". But, I stay with his language, because the point should be made that doing the right thing isn't always about following rules...

Me - "Yes, I will cross boundaries and break rules, and I will ask if things are right or if they are wrong. and if somebody tells me that I have to do this thing that they consider right, I will chose as to whether I believe it is right or wrong. I learnt that lesson a long time ago - not to 'follow orders' or to shirk my personal responsibility for my actions. I had an experience in which I simply did was was expected of me, and I was shocked - when I looked at the actual consequence. I vowed never to do that again".

He -"There is a bit of a difference though, isn't there, between that situation and a client inviting a therapist into a non-therapeutic relationship"

Me - "I was just straight. and you can object to being given an invite, but it is up to you what you do with an invite. And you are objecting to it, OK"

"Freedom is what we do with what is done to us. We are our choices." Sartre. 

He - "I'm not objecting, I'm just discussing it like you asked"

If not objecting, certainly sounding accusatorial and disapproving.

Metaphorically holding a pair of scissors, blades smeared with dust and blood, I watch as he cuts. Tears in my eyes as the butterfly's wings fall to the ground. Beauty is destroyed by brute cruelty.

Me - "Discussing it like I asked..."

He -"Isn't there some, being as you mention congruence and incongruence, isn't there some incongruence with a trainee counsellor saying they don't really care much for the ethical code of their professional body"

Me - "I do not care to follow rules blindly without thought and consideration. To justify my actions because this page, this piece of paper this web page says, under no circumstances ever? Ah no. I will chose, after I have worked out what I think is best, I have to, and that's it, all you need to know, that's the truth of it. You can make a rule, 'Thou shalt not' and you will find a 100 situations where that rule is inhumane and not enhancing life. It is not simple. Life is not simple. And one cannot know the outcomes of anything, a choice has to be made. What I did was to say, this is how it is, and this is how it is. And yes, I will break rules that is a fact and so you can do what ever you wish with this knowledge, write to my course leader, whatever. Because all consequences were in the equation. And I will explain why. I was the same when I worked in the NHS, there were times when I was asked to do things that contradicted patient safety and therefore I refused. It has to be this way. I don't allow myself the excuse of 'following orders'!"

He - "I take it the comment about writing to your course leader, was tongue in cheek"

<I am metaphorically - on my knees at this point. Nothing, right from the beginning of this session could possible be 'tongue in cheek '>

Me - "I've no idea...."

He - "So is being referred to as a client really an objectification?"

Me - "Yes, it is! In this situation it is patronizing and dehumanizing."

He - "A client is simply somebody who volunteers or is sent, and pays me to have a session every week. That's it. That's what you do. So you are a client. nothing objectifying about that!"

Me - "Yes there is, there is plenty 'objectifying' about it. I'm not a client. I am not incongruent... And when I give you a version of you that you don't like, then you kind of tell me, in that specific tone of voice, and I always try to drain it....It's true, I am not a client and it does feel like objectification"

He - "So what is a better word?"

Me - "There isn't a better word or term, I am what ever I am. but OK. I'm Xerpa who sits on your sofa every Monday afternoon. There isn't a name for it - it's an interaction, Gendlin again, social constructivist theory...'

He -"So is it other people who are not clients, or is it just you"? 

Me - You can call them what ever you want! 

He - "Oh so they can be objectified?"

Me - "Do I feel that I objectify people by calling them clients? It is certainly a different status, they are in a different mental place in my mind"

He - "Well it's a contractual agreement isn't it, between a therapist and a client"

Me - "Yes, but there is also a lot of unsaid, underground stuff, implications as well that may not be clear. But mostly with clients we are in agreement, through television, word of mouth, friends experiences there is an enactment of therapist and client. There is a common and shared view of what it is going to be"

He - "What isn't clear? You said that there are other things going on that aren't clear? 

The tone of his voice, the need to know..

I'm not going into his triggers! Nor do I care to take care of his feelings. My turn to avoid! I give a general description of my process which fits past, present and future...

Me - "Yes, I think so. There are the explicit expectations laid out in the contract, but then there are the inexplicit expectations which I generally try to bring into the open "

He - "Like what?"

This matters to him and so I don't engage because I don't owe him any more truth than I have given, I've been as open and as honest as it is possible for me to be with him.

He can take 'his stuff' to his own therapist.

Me - "Boundaries need to be negotiated as they arise, sometimes rules need to be changed. That is my point. For example, negotiating how to use WhatsApp between session times with a person - a client - who is suffering withdrawal after deciding to just go cold turkey. Things that are individual, and unique to the session to accommodate reality."

He - "It depends on the boundaries, because some boundaries are agreed on by all therapists, by a professional body, and there are other things that some therapists will do and others wont. but the basic, broad starting point is the same for everyone - there is just 5 minutes left, and I'm aware that you still haven't referred to your journal.

...What does he think may be written in there?

Me - "I have, twice! But we can carry on in another session because they are all more than something to be spoken of in just 5 minutes".

He - "Hmm so you know where my boundaries are, but I've reiterated that today, that you said you wanted things out in the open, so that's what I've done. My out in the open means holding the line, essentially. So how is that with you?

You dearest Kit, have metaphorically administered the electric shocks in Milgram's experiment, you have righteously followed orders.  But not because you respect authority, but because you are scared that something bad might happen to you otherwise. You have held the line that separates those who accept ambiguity and uncertainty as the cost of personal responsibility, and those who blindly do what they have been told to do because in this moment it feels safer and easier. 

But this wasn't Milgram's experiment. 

The shock and pain I'm feeling is real. 

The only difference is, there is no man in a white coat making you do this. No man with a gun. No one except you, made you do this...

Me - "How is that with me? What possibilities could there be in answering that! How is that with me? No different to how it was"

A magnificently safe answer.

He - "OK...well, you said that you would prefer to know rather than not know"

Me - "Yes"

I know nothing more, except something of the depth of his fears and how he reacts when scared.

He - "But it clearly wasn't the answer you were hoping for when you sent the recording, or you wouldn't have sent it"

This theme keeps repeating. 'wasn't something you wanted/hoped for'.

I reply with the truth.

Me - "Ah no, the recording is about truth and honesty. Of course I wanted a different answer, why would I not!

He - "I could give you a list of reasons"

Me - "You could give me a list of reasons why I would not! Why I would not want a different answer?"

He - "Yes"

Me - "That's an interesting one...you could give me a list of reasons why I would not want?

He - "Yes - so foremost in my mind is the possibility, if my answer was different, you being a trainee counsellor on a course already with a track record of having broken  the professional ethical code with a therapist in your wake"

Wake is a strange word to use, as if I'd leave him behind and move on to the next...so, he has to throw me over the cliff. And how dare I offer love! 

Me - "There are ways to negotiate and navigate, always. To do the right thing within reality, within the truth and within the rules - and that does not mean bending rules. It means working with what is, and that means being clear in one's own heart about what is...because nowhere does it say in the ethical framework people can't fall in love! OK, how long am I going to be a trainee therapist for, I am not a trainee therapist for the rest of my life, and nor am I a naïve sixteen year old in need of protection from predation because I don't know what I'm doing!" 

He - "I never suggested that!"

Me - "No, but it feels like that"

He - "As far as I'm concerned once a client always a client. So occasionally somebody will.....

OK, this script has been repeated to me at the very least, three times already. Why on earth does he believe that I will ever come back 'as a client' when I've spent an hour explaining yet again that calling me a client is objectifying, patronizing, and very cruel.

He... say, 'they think we might get on outside of therapy and do I want to meet them at the pub one day' and I always say no and I usually explain why, that I'm holding the professional boundary because one day  this person might come back to me"

Me - "No, this person will not come back, because it is not possible"

He - "Clients do come back"

Me - "I'm not a client"

He - "Clients do come back"

Me - "I am not a client"

He - "If in the meantime they become friends"

Me - "It's not possible, I'm not a client and I wont come back, it is not possible because when I take a vow I mean my vows, I don't break my vows with the proviso that if I do break them I am aware of it, and there has to be a good reason, and repair. But I don't break my vows"

He - "I don't understand what you mean by your vows  here, why do you mention vows"

A vow to maintain my integrity, a vow to place love as the highest and most sacred gift of consciousness and life! A vow to do my best for all others, above and beyond my personal hopes and fears. That meant that I had to tell him. Integrity means that I am not his client! What does he find difficult to understand about this? Does he really think we have had a special bond because I've told him things I can't tell anyone else! Lord, no! I have another blog somewhere that charts the awful time when my son was so ill and my husband a total bastard. I shared my thought's feelings and pain with total strangers - because if they were going through the same thing - I know that feeling alone in that nightmare is unbearable - so I was there with them. 

But I've not shared half the depth of those posts with him because he missed me by miles, he applied theory, and the lack of affect and inability to express feelings (in words even) made me feel extremely uncomfortable.. But I was fascinated by who he was - and so it began. 

My courage in placing love as the highest value means that I'm not playing games.  

Eros can kill...my life is on the line.

He - "You do understand I'm never going to see you in any other way than as a client"

He has just said 'you do understand that I'm never going to see you again...' There - my heart breaks - my soul is torn apart. 

The image of the butterfly, cut and without wings merges with myself. 

Me - "I know. I was between a rock and a hard place"

Tears fill my eyes.

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 "

He - "I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about my principles, my ethical rule, that once a client always a client because you never know what the future is going to bring, and people do come back"

Ambiguity. 'I wasn't talking about you...'

Erasure. I'm not even so much as talking about you. Narcissistic. This is nothing to do with you, it is only about me - my principles. 

Me - "They do but this, here, now, this is about real human beings and me saying that that wont happen"

He - "Hmm" 

Me - "It's not some kind of sacrifice, it is just the truth"

He - "But the line still holds"

Me - "The line still holds for you"

He - "We are over time"