Redirecting Self Therapy Results: Fast?

Plenty of stuff to discuss in the world, with the focus on causes
JM

Redirecting Self Therapy Results: Fast?

Post by JM »

Dennis, I am putting a new topic title to answer your question about RST: "The three month intensive and 1-2 year muddy basin". I would have to say that this is variable. I personally have been doing RST since November of 2003, doing as much as one hour a day most days since November of 2004. My current count of redirecting is at 520+ hours. In our group ( in Chile) there is one person with 240 hours and another with as much as 400 from what I understand. One person ( with 240 hours) had CFS, and now does not. That is very dramatic.

The symptoms came and went, and the illness now seems to be either gone or in check. All of us got histamine reactions. Nobody got the "3 months" prediction. But none of us reflected the classic "depression" profile that seemed to emerge out of her forum on http://www.gocure.com I am sure that has a lot to do with it. After all my work, I really am only beginning to get a handle on how ill I was. The change has been enormous.

What Van Winkle misses is the impact of stored trauma coming from codependent systems. Don't forget that each person carries the entire content of their family system, so the amount of trauma is very variable. The capacity of the brain to "gate" seems to be huge, so the amount of trauma stored (multigenerational, and mediated by family secrets) could be unknown, and again very variable. Maybe that accounts for us all not having got the "quick results".

The other factor could be sex differences. Men who have less emotional intensity might have a harder time getting to the deeper trauma when redirecting....perhaps women don't. I also was working with a terrible anxiety disorder that had dogged me for 20 years. My illness was crippling. This has really changed a lot.

I also no longer am associating with easily 90% of my former reference groups. Again, Van Winkle doesn't get into this. It's important because RST is best done by choosing targets in your life...people around you...and redirecting to parents....or "other abusers", or even people who were idolized ( especially people who were idolized, or considered "untouchables"). This for me meant a codependency map. And that was a process. I didn't know who meant what...and that gradually unfolded.

The other thing is that a person who does RST will find their life going into big big change...and conflict. Since RST goes after identity issues( feeling)....it just has to touch on our social ( family system) identity. Van Winkle oversimplified this and treated each person as an individual....which is certainly good if a person is well ( being individuated with boundaries is the goal)....but a person in primal or RST is always severely codependent. She just didn't cover this. I think that is a huge factor in treatment time. Again, this RST is in it's infancy, I can only talk about my own experience.

I have never done any primal work, only RST. By doing the codependency map, this seemed to directly bypass the gating and brain defences. According to Elnora Van Winkle, the parent replacement neurons ( and processing) is directly connected to parents ( or abusers). Is this true? I think so. I mean it has certainly been true in my case.

As in any grieving process, there is denial, bargaining, anger...and then the tears. This is RST. I was amazed at how the tears started. There must be some kind of "critical mass" trigger once enough norepinephrine has been dumped. I'm not a scientist and am still looking for someone to explain how this works. They've stopped now...at least in the way they were flowing continuously. But I know I have a ways to go yet ( I am prepared to do 1,000 hours).

RST is no more than a greiving process, and it uncovers gated areas. That's it. As far as saying it's "a three month intensive" and then 1-2 years muddy basin.....I'd say she is not right about that. For me it has been much much longer, and I've done the work well. I am also using dream versions of parental images, since those have a "felt sense" and seem to get at deeper levels.

John
User avatar
Dennis
Site Admin
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Dennis »

Thanks John for telling us about your RST experiences. Maybe the 3 month intensive applies to people who have the time to work on themselves every day without worrying about a job or income. And the length and intensity of past abuse probably has an effect.

I agree that codependency is very underrated as a negative influence in healing. That's why I'm not a fan of internet self-help groups. I once said that if you want to heal, meet healthy people instead of people with the same problems. When I decided to do that, it was very painful because it forced me to see my own damage.

During my grieving period I cried every day for a whole year. And I never had problems crying as a child when I was alone. I see a lot of tension in people's faces who cannot cry.

Some people here at the forum want to see scientific evidence that primal/RST is healing and are worried that it's some kind of religious belief. There has been physical and biological changes in people after therapy but that hasn't been enough to convince the sceptics.

Like you, I have been dealing with my dreams as well. Janov once said that the feelings in dreams are real, the rest is symbolic. When I confronted fears in my dreams (by lucid dreaming) I noticed changes in my life. I could trace back some repetitive dreams to early childhood traumas.

Amazing actually how the human body works...

Dennis
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:55 am

Post by John »

Dennis,

Thanks for your comments. I was interested to see you had cried for a whole year ( the real purpose of RST). Why in your opinion does self-primalling have less impact than RST? Have you tried self-primalling? The only place I have heard about it in depth was in Thomas Stone's Cure by Crying. He had heard about Arthur Janov and did extensive experiments in self-primalling ( he details them in his book). In fact he tried over 250 therapies and dedicated his life to getting rid of his nuerosis. I related due to the chronic anxiety and tension he felt. This is what I have been working through ( of course he was married to a child of an alcoholic....once again....codependency ( de-selfment) is the root). His method is weighty where RST is not...but he seemed to dismiss self-primalling. And I hear about it but nobody is really getting into the practice of it...just theory. I'm all for what works. I read a post by Ian Copeland talking about "people taking other's realities away" when discussing topics like these. I guess all neurotics have this tendency, and the urge does arise in me ( since I have done so much RST, the world looks like RST). So I'd like to try to learn more and get into the spirit of what you say you have brought the forum into existence for: Theory and practice regarding Janov, Miller and VanWinkle. I know Miller through Bradshaw because his work is founded on the poisonous pedagogy. He's also directed at the common man, and being a severe codependent himself, he knows what he's talking about ( Bradshaw On The Family). I think he doesn't go far enough, but he seems to know that codependency is the problem ( de-selfment). I've brought a lot up here, since few are talking about this theme ( in Chile people just get drugged with SSRIs and NRIs and talk therapy...yeah, that's a drug too). So to put a question out there, why ( in your opinon does RST work so deeply and self-primalling ( supposedly) not? Have you done self-primalling? Do you know of people who have done this successfully? ( practice, not theory) Slow or fast, RST seems to work....where they say that primalling yourself doesn't.

John
Guest

Post by Guest »

This is an interesting discussion because I have seen very few people turn up on any forum who have done RST.

A long time ago I studied VanWinkle's website and concluded that RST was closely related to primal. Am I right in thinking that is where RST is described? But that there were some major differences. But there were no parts of RST that I could use. Thats probably not surprising since I am a long time primaller. Maybe I have some misconceptions.
I just "go" with whatever feelings come up and try to take them to the source. It would be good to list the differences between primal and RST but I would have to study the matter again.

The question of how long a therapy like primal or RST will take always comes up. I think that there is no real good answer because it is highly dependent on the individual. Maybe I shouldn't lump the two together but that's just what I think.

I think that all successful primalers at some point will do quite a bit of self-primalling even when they started with a therapist. My feeling is that there are actually very few successful primalers who never worked with a therapist.

Phil
User avatar
Dennis
Site Admin
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Dennis »

In my opinion there are no real big differences between RST and Primal but in its approach. First of all the name Primal seemed to have attracted certain mystical elements. The name Re-directing is more to the point. Van Winkle also made it clear that re-living a trauma shouldn't be the goal but EXPRESSING the pain of the original trauma. Too many times Primal is presented as regression therapy, even though Janov didn't describe it that way in his books. If you re-live a traumatic experience, then there's a fair chance the body reacts the same way as it originally did; denial, self-deception, maintaining an abusive or unhealthy relationship, to name a few examples. Miller says it needs to be done step by step, breaking the layers down carefully. But that could also mean unnecessary delay of healing. It's easy to choose to shield off pain. Van Winkle said: just go for it, without analyzing, but re-direct it to former abusers and/ or parents.

I used Stettbacher's method of primal self-therapy together with the books of Miller, Janov. I've also read Bradshaw, which is very good at describing abusive situations in different situations but when it comes to healing, he goes into the wrong direction by supporting forgiveness. I share Miller's opinion on forgiveness, that it's a trap, a way to sympathize with the abuser. When I look back to the moments that I made the best progressions, I recognize more of RST in it than Primal.

Doing primal yourself has shown devastating effects for some people. New neurosis were created with new illusions. Primal became the goal not the means. RST is more clear and more direct. Maybe because there's less money involved with that.

During that year I cried every day, I didn't sit and forced myself crying. It came through reading, seeing a movie, writing, confrontations with my parents, with and without them. But I let myself cry, I allowed myself to grieve. In my case I hated my parents for a large part of my childhood and I refused to admit that those people had hurt me. I thought that meant that they had won. That their efforts to make me obedient had succeeded. Later I realized that I needed care and love without any conditions.

A good friend of mine is having therapy with a Belgian therapist that works according to Janov and Miller. The therapist wrote a book that I described a bit here:

http://primalforum.freepgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=51

My friend and I used to discuss Janov and Miller but he couldn't place those truths into his own life. Nevertheless, a seed was planted and he continued looking for a good therapist. We lost contact for years but wrote me again after 3 months of therapy saying that if he hadn't known me then, he wouldn't have survived. That's also one of the reasons why I keep promoting the works of these writers. Because in today's world where the pharmaceutical industry has the majority in its grip and talk therapy / talk TV is the trend, any effort to promote RST and Primal is welcomed by me.

Dennis
Last edited by Dennis on Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:55 am

Post by John »

This to me contains a lot of key points on the theme of RST vs. Primal. I see a picture being painted. From the standpoint of primal therapy, I can't imagine people "going into the feeling" in such an indirect manner
(with whatever comes up) and dealing with the theme of forgiveness
(pain). This is what RST is. A forgiveness process ( forgiveness meaning pain...loss....and then anger-tears coming from this).

In reading somewhere here that "Janov was not just interested in anger, but also expressing feelings of love", I don't see the all important goal of forgiveness ( letting go of pain...instead of the traditional definition of forgiveness which means overlooking a wrong). Expressing feelings of love to me wouldn't seem too involved in grieving and it does seem cumbersome ( although of course useful to find with a skilled therapist if grieving is not focused on). If loving is in our nature and a child does this spontaneously, wouldn't deep and complete grieving bring that back as the child is brought back? Always? I agree that RST is much more direct ( again, you've done both primal and RST so I'm going by what you say here and what I have read) and doesn't require the re-living. It would seem to me that all this re-living has to do with holistic feeling and thus it's incredible therapeutic power. The primaler is "actually there" so he gets all the content...the gates have been passed. Holistic integration is possible. RST does not do this. But does that mean it's not removing neurosis? Let's not forget the point here....to feel good and get rid of neurosis.

You explain very well the dangers of self-primalling, and it makes sense that brain defences wouldn't back off without a therapist (Phil's point). In the end the question may be answered by seeing if the defences were gotten around with RST. Isn't this it? Afterall, VanWinkle is saying that the brain rights itself once the toxicosis ( suppressed fight or flight) is gone. If the brain is righting itself, the defences were passed. It's not that primal is really doing anything different then. It's just harder, longer and more uncertain.

Dennis, you mentioned using dream images for RST ( I did that too, reasoning that there is more "felt sense " with that) and noticed releasing ever more norepinephrine. I even had the histamine reaction return ( in the same place) after a year of it not being there. I think the dream work is fantastic. I think that it's groundbreaking to apply it with RST. VanWinkle doesn't bring this up and just says "abusers" or "parents" etc.

I don't have the advantage of comparison, so this is a very interesting discussion to me. Dennis, your link was outstanding. I loved that chart. That's an excellent metric concerning neurosis.

So the formula for primal would be to do the work with a therapist and then to self-primal afterwards and just guess that it's working by integrating more and more feeling. I'm not clear on what feedback a person could get to know that.

RST is pretty clear on the feedback. First the sympathetic nervous system with the dumping of the noradrenergic neurons. Once that's done ....post flood. Then a couple of years of crying, which occurs via the parasympathetic nervous system
(involving the acetycholinergic neurons). There's much more involved, but that's the basic idea I understand. The way the brain processes would change, so the whole organ gets involved with RST.

Again, with zero review from someone with a neuroscience background, there's only so much that can be said about the action in the body. I did get a letter back from a neuroscientist in Europe who said "good luck...it's way way too complicated and you'll never get a definitive answer". Although that didn't stop drug companies from generating a 100 billion dollar + a year business and blocking re-uptake of norepinephrine, serotonin as well as pills to generate a GABA reaction ( calming people down). They know where the action is. They saw smoke and immediately claimed fire. And they weren't wrong. So even though RST isn't involving billions of dollars, I'll arbitrarily provide the therapy the same right! Smoke...fire.

The bottom line in comparing primal-RST is that it's definitely anger-tears with RST, and all the triggers you mentioned Dennis. I get the same thing. I didn't cry for 10 years ( that I remember) so I'm pretty sure RST brought on all that crying!

It seems to me that there's a lot of money connected to primal success since it's best done with a therapist. And doing it alone is only for people who are experienced with a therapist....and here I'm losing the thread because the metrics seem very subjective ( your link from the book suggestion gives themes for a non-neurotic person, but only RST would seem to be clear on when those themes get reached....via the anger-tears route).

If RST and Primal are "effectively the same", a sustained intense RST program seems that it would be faster in most cases ( or just much more effective).

My RST is more effective the more I get out there and challenge myself ( triggers). But even NOT doing that, it seemed that those triggers found me!

I got a lot out of that last post...thanks.

Thanks for the translation in the link.

John
Phil
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:31 am

Post by Phil »

I went to the site and read up a little on RST again. Compared to primal one difference I see is that with primal meaning is derived from the relivings and this is an important goal. These are the insights into one's behavior and life, current and past. This doesn't seem to be emphasized with RST.
With primal, the people who don't have severe very early traumas such as birth trauma or abandonment after birth, or sexual abuse, have a good chance of recovering fairly quickly. The ones who take a long time are the ones who have these "1st line" early traumas.
RST doesn't seem to address the issue of birth and other early traumas. But the process of redirecting anger could lead to the expression and healing of birth traumas.
Another point is that RST seems to assume that the process of redirecting anger will work for everyone. My own experiences and observations with primal and have shown me that many people have trouble with connecting to their feelings. They can try and try to express their anger to it's source and nothing happens, with or without the help of a therapist. It just will not automatically happen for everyone. In fact, it may not happen at all. Other people can connect right away and these are the ones who could be successful self-primallers totally on their own.

Phil
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:55 am

Post by John »

I think Phil's post starts to give more shape to the differences between primal and RST. I also think that this work is evolving and both therapies could improve substantially from comparisons ( especially hearing from people who have done both...and have experience...practical is everything). The comment that RST doesn't deal with variablity in getting at anger to me is true. That's been my experience. I had to do 520 hours of RST to get as far as I have ( it's another world) and I had to get super creative. However another person in the group got mania symptoms ( was actually "high") for a few weeks. She claims this will happen. It didn't happen to me. I wonder about "first line" trauma and treatment time-effectiveness in RST-primal. Remember VanWinkle's story....she has no specific traumas, just a family system likely loaded with carried shame and secrets. Add limbic resonance and multi-generational transferring of unfinished business ( Miller would certainly agree) and "first line" is really not as important. The brain is reflecting it's immediate social context....and that is certainly not a "closed" nuclear family. Wouldn't everyone agree here that a human being is born into a role? Isn't that basic family systems? Doesn't codependency MEAN that a person supresses feelings ( fight or flight to Van Winkle) to bow to the needs of the family system ....as much as 5 generations of demands? Is that still considered "theoretical". Miller certainly would say it wasn't. No wonder she goes for "layers". Who knows whats in there. Primal ( if it is what you are saying) considering "first line trauma" as having "comparative relevance" in a black box doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And don't people who sexually abuse feel compulsively drawn to transfer their shame to a child who is obedient and given over to the demands of his family system? The trauma on the first line has already happened before the abuse cements it. I'm not sure that "first line" really helps this discussion. Again, I'm just thinking about basic family systems. Maybe I'm missing something in the equation.

The other thing is what VanWinkle falls down on ( also mentioned in the post by Phil). What about the deeper traumas? What about birth trauma? Isn't that stuff too gated for RST to get at? Wouldn't consistent primalling have a better shot? I disagree from what I am reading, and from what I am experiencing in RST. It would appear that RST would be more successful than primal. Yes, VanWinkle didn't highlight it ( birth trauma as an example), but that would become a small point if RST actually addresses it anyway by a person going post-flood and living out the 1-2 year "muddy basin" ( post post-flood).

When traumas ( or multi-generational family system content) generates powerful feeling repression ( fight or flight suppression) I think most poeple from the primal school are going to agree that that gets played out in their world in a very specific way.

Enter the codependency map.

The "repetition compulsion" means that I'm going to set up abuser-repeats to get that pain out. The brain won't be denied. The deeper traumas would be more inclined to be MOST prominent in a person's life. They would be the "overall feel" of a person's world, and all he'd have to do is just take whoever is in his world...and redirect back! JUST GUESS. As Dennis was saying, forget the attempt to outline the blackbox and just trust that it's trying to heal anyway. So I just make my codependency map ( people in my life) and start punching. Physically or mentally. When? When I have the "nervous symptoms". VanWinkle mentions them all. She doesn't miss any. But people might miss the connection there, and figure she's not "getting at first line trauma". I think this is a huge mistake. Now a primaler is back to his "gating and waiting". Slow healing. This makes sense to me, but maybe personal experience of primalers shows something that makes my conclusions here wrong.

As far as where the action is for RST, it's in the same place the drug companies are. The only difference is that blocking re-uptake of neurotransmitters doesn't change the processing style of the brain.....the anger is still there. The lack of forgiveness ( trapped grieving) is still there. Once the anger-tears are out, processing style can change.

How? That's something I'd love to know about. I know it actually does due to personal experience. I'm still searching for someone who could take the RST in medical hypothesis and do something with it.

Wouldn't it be useful to do a head to head of RST and primal using neurology instead of concepts? Isn't Janov connected to people who know about this field in a most precise way?

I think there's a huge opportunity here.

Right now, it would appear that RST has far more potential at ridding a person of his deepest nuerosis than primal. RST is just more flexible, more specific and it would appear, more thorough.

I think the idea of RST not hitting first line like primal does is mistaken.

John
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:55 am

Post by John »

In comparing RST and primal, I think the idea of "first line" trauma is going to be very important. It's so central to primal. Also to memory recovery people ( Thomas Stone, Cure by Crying) who staged a miracluous recovery by getting at 25 specific traumas. Most of them very early. Primal. First. First line. RST. Redirecting Self Therapy. It's a tough one. I'm reading from the excellent resource on primal therapy Speyrer has to help. ( http://primal-page.com/alpha-au.htm )

An article written by him talks about first line ( and certainly house dreams which are highly symbolic or hidden feelings from trauma) and even early surgery and early drowning. It caught my eye as objective "first line" since I had both....near drowning at 4 and surgery at 3.

(http://primal-page.com/dreams.htm )

If I were a primaller I wouldn't probably look at RST due to the convincing notion that primal as getting to "first line" is the only way in...and out. I mean it sure does look that way. Maybe it IS that way. At 530 hours of RST I'm not done.

What concerns me in this comparison is:

1. What motivation a primaller would even have to investigate without understanding what RST does first. With all the assumptions, it "might not meet his needs" ( reality looks a certain way).

2. Perhaps a whole bunch of people would have to lead the way and get totally better to draw attention to this.

3. Since RST is scientific to the extreme and at it's core reads like a 4th year university neurology course, people are going to turn to "concepts".

I don't know exactly how to address these obstacles, if they are true as obstacles.

I put this out then. "First line" or "primal" trauma exists and primal therapy addresses it. That's clear. It works. Guys like Thomas Stone have resolved these with crying ( RST is a year straight of crying after all the blocked fight or flight is released, Stone took 5-7 years...but he was clearly healed).

For those looking to see if there is a FASTER way to get better, would RST do it? Does it address the all important first line trauma? The idea that my world is a reaction to primal experiences in that I build it to be in line with them as a defence, would mean I'd have all I need in front of me to redirect to SPATIALLY SPECIFIC AREAS. This is Van Winkle's whole point. Spatially specific sheets of abstraction in the neural net...which then hits brain processing style afterwards. Like a critical mass of dumping atrophied neurons that tips into a new style of processing in the "CPU". Like a very deep scan disk...since everything going on in my world is a reaction to deep trauma unresolved and held in these atrophied nerves. That's the idea. And it's a process.

Emotionally connected depressed or anxious women would be more likely to get the intensity needed for faster recovery, as they took their world and it's projected primal-based actors back to parents-abusers. I didn't. I'm working my butt off to get that intensity. I have managed it at times. Just moving the body in an angry way begins to do it. The body knows what anger is, even if I have disconnected much of it. Acting into feeling. The connections happen. Healing happens. I mean after 530 hours of this, c'mon! What has happened...has indeed happened. I'm in the middle of this.

Van Winkle also dismisses dangers of self-therapy using redirection of nervous symptoms (as simple as low self esteem thoughts).....but not of self-primal. Another huge difference. One is considered potentially dangerous and the other safe.

It's early yet. Not enough people have gotten better with RST yet. And primal therapy got a huge kick upstairs by having Lennon involved. Even that got a wet blanket by having the therapy connected to "screaming".

So it's early in the process. Even though family systems carry codependency in group and many traumas cement something already in the brain...and now just given a tag ( the "first line trauma") there are separate incidents that ARE clearly just first line. Like Speyers surgery and near drowning. Since I had them both, it brought home the point about primal and first line. But the Miller-Bradshaw idea of many generations helped along the accumulated trauma. VanWinkle would be more inclined to believe Miller since she had little "first line" trauma and much more systemic abandonment trauma threats....constantly held over her. That has to come out, and I believe it is in there in each person. Gated in most...but there. Would "first line" be a good term to describe this kind of sustained trauma? It's the day after day sustained trauma that causes us to supress anger ( fight or flight). A noradrenergic nueron is a noradrenergic nueron. I don't think it's anything else. At least drug companies don't.

I continue to work and study. Nothing like practical work to open up more avenues of discovery. The thing is, once I'm post-primal using RST, it's going to be hard to know what getting post-primal using primal therapy is like.

Assuming this works for me. Judging from what has happened so far, it's not unreasonable to think it will work. Doing RST in a disciplined and ongoing way brings powerful changes. It did in the people I know who have done it too. To me this is undeniable. The comparison suggesting treatment time variability ( and showing areas of why that may be) is to me very useful.
Phil
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:31 am

Post by Phil »

Hi John,

There is a recent book which I mentioned in another post, by Jim Pullaro, in the media category here, which cites Van Winkles ideas and work. The book seems to treat Van Winkles work as another take on the same process. It may be of interest.
I tend to feel that what is unique about my therapy is how it proceeds for me. So I can try different methods and techniques, yet the process I will have to go through remains the same.
To reaching 1st line feelings, many primallers find that they can not get there without the help of therapists or buddies and that touching and holding is helpful.

Thanks for sharing your interesting experiences with RST.

Phil
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:55 am

Post by John »

Phil,

That was a solid referral ( Jim's work). I couldn't think of a better description of how primal and RST are connected than the one this author is giving in his article found in a journal of the International Primal Association. It's small, and on page 5. Thanks for this...it has opened up a lot.

http://www.primals.org/archives/newslet ... Summer.pdf

(See page 5: Naturopathy and Primal Therapy)

The author ( like Dennis) is also not seeing that much difference between Primal and RST. I don't want to act as if this is the last word though. But it does clear a lot of confusion for the moment.

John
Phil
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:31 am

Post by Phil »

John,

Here is a link to a longer article Jim Pullaro wrote which is on the IPA website. It has a review of the literature on what he calls "fear memory integration".
He also wrote a book in which he elaborates in more detail.
In both there is a lot of referance to Van Winkle.

http://www.primals.org/Thesis/pullaro%20thesis4.pdf

It doesn?t have to be the last word, I just thought it was of interest.
What I especially like in his work is his explanation of the two memory systems It seems to verify a lot of things for me.

Phil
User avatar
Dennis
Site Admin
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Dennis »

Interesting posts here. In my opinion Primal seems to focus too much on birth traumas. When some people read Janov's books they concluded that most of their problems were due to their birth trauma. By doing so, they could avoid the enormous pain suffered in the childhood. Birth regression, re-birthing became quickly very popular. I've heard people saying that they were working for more than 20 years on integrating birth trauma. Is that really birth then? When babies are given Primal Therapy, they often are healed after a few months.

Van Winkle often mentioned that she was left alone in the crib. Jean Liedloff described this as standard methods in our modern world. The baby adapts to the toxic environment it grows up in.

It's not impossible to experience feelings connected to birth without therapy. I've seen a woman whose husband said he was going to leave her, breaking into tears, and then, suddenly, gasping for air, saying she couldn't breathe. Separation anxiety triggered an early separation at birth. A connection is made, but not at an intellectual level.

My earliest traumas I've recovered, started with a repetitive dream I had about once a year: I was lying on a bed but couldn't move. I sensed an incredible evil presence nearby, invisible, but I was aware that it could destroy me within a second. Sometimes I noticed aliens nearby. Janov claims that feelings in dreams are real, the rest is symbolic. The fear I felt in those dreams were so intense that if I had felt them in real life, I would have turned crazy. Or more likely, suppressed them with all I could get.

One time I could make a connection. I asked my mother about the time I was hospitalized at the age of 8 months for a burned foot. I knew this as a fact but had never asked for more details. Now she said that I was very scared and that they had strapped my hands down on the table. She wasn't allowed to stay and had to watch from behind a window. The doctors/ nurses wore their masks, which must be very frightfull for a baby to only see their tense eyes and small mouths. All that fear and not being able to move, not knowing if I would die or live.

But by first integrated this through dreams, made apparently the necessary connections, bypassing intellectual defenses. I can imagine some people prefer believing that they were abducted by aliens, than by confronting the real world of brutal hospitalizations. Also know that - not so long ago - they never anaesthetized babies as doctors believed babies couldn't feel pain. Go figure.

John, forgiveness is an intellectual concept. Even though if you interpreted it as letting go of pain, the difference between letting go, and not wanting to feel pain is very small. Forgiveness shouldn't be an issue in Primal/ RST. It's about expression. Forgiveness doesn't express anything, it covers it up.

The Belgian therapist I refered to earlier, Rien Verdult, gives another primal reaction to the Fight/ Flight reaction: Freeze. Some people react by freezing, not being able to fight, not being able to escape from it. He links it to pre-natal traumas.

Phil, I also know people who are unable to express physical anger. For them it doesn't feel authentic. When they try, it feels like pretending. Maybe in those cases, physical anger might trigger symptoms of a birth trauma.

To be continued...

Dennis
Guest

Post by Guest »

Dennis,

Good primal therapists do not focus on the possibility of birth primals. Material is supposed to come up in a natural way. But it is well known that birth primals give tremendous relief and change for the primaller. These are huge traumas and thats why it can take 20 years. But it usually takes years to get to it and it defies prediction.
To me, a sign of bad therapy is a premature focus on birth, or prenatal traumas. But, apparently, there are a lot of therapists who do that.
This could be worse than having no therapy at all.

I have been able to primal small parts of birth but it usually comes out in a session after feelings on later stuff. There are physical barriers of muscular tensions that I have which prevent me from having a full birth primal. This is probably a good thing.
I am really unaware of information regarding primal therapy with babies.
In my case, whatever trauma occurred at birth, was compounded by a lot of stuff which happened to me later in early childhood. For example, I didn?t have my mother. She became severely ill, was unresponsive and like a vegetable. It was impossible to get anything from her, nor was there ever any mother substitute. That is a large focus of what I deal with.
In theory, I suppose that primal therapy on babies would prevent the compounding of later events with birth. Birth traumas set an early neurosis which makes the person much more vulnerable to later traumas.
I don?t really give any attention to having a birth primal. In a self session my expressions start with current things bothering me. That usually will lead to early scenes and finally, rarely, to physical stuff which I associate with birth. Also, I have no factual information about my birth except that it was a natural delivery.

Phil
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:55 am

Post by John »

Phil's offering of a link to Jim Pularo's Phd thesis on primal therapy and memory et al was more than good for my understanding of primal and RST. It reminds me of that old Woody Allen movie where they're arguing the validity of the the concept of "Global Village" ( Marshall Macluhan's theory about the one tribe we seem to be coming)....and then pulls the real Marshall M. from behind something in the lobby. Marshall then proceeds to lay out his theory in person. That's how Phil pulling out Jim's work comes across as a help to understand primal-RST for me. It's over the top. Great. Much more than expected.

You guys have brought up a lot...and it's very informative and a great discussion. The whole concept of "imprint intrusion" from the feeling memory into the higher memory.....and overlaying detox as a mediator. This is also RST. I also get Phil's comment about wanting therapists, touching and holding...since that is how the early memory responds. Makes sense. The idea of comparing primal to RST to see if the detox process of RST is actually faster than that of primal comes to the front of the line with birth trauma. Both of you are talking about integrative experiences of a powerful nature....and it taking a long long time. Twenty years? I'm going to check the archives ...but I seem to remembere VanWinkle relating her experiences of bruising from birth trauma....from doing only RST. Now if THAT is true, that certainly would be interesting wouldn't it. It's just unthinkable for primalers to consider that NOT RE-LIVING the feeling memory ( ancient amygdalian feeling memory ) could mean integration. I can see that it's not up for discussion yet. I mean I don't know. Imagine the effect of combining these therapies where the deeper defences are stopping this level of integration. I don't think Van Winkle would invent the data about bruises. I'll have to dig to find the letter.

Why is this topic so important? To me two reasons. Accessibility to an option to release very serious health problems via a therapy that could be as good or better than primal therapy. It's free. The second is that use of the "detox paradigm" ( Jim's view of primal therapy) in the cleaning out of pain in the feeling memory may have a chance to evolve to a much more efficient treatment.

This issue of birth trauma brings up the notion that primal therapy could be a long long road where RST might not be. VanWinkle is very clear on saying that the patient must clean up his diet since toxicosis could "bring back symptoms".

(Note: Dennis's view of forgiveness is ( I believe) right in line with both RST and primal.....it's a defence.)

I continually hear about primallers "going with the feeling".....and doing their work. That sure does seem like a missed opportunity to me. Wouldn't everyone agree that our lives are actually MADE UP of what hasn't been detoxed? Imprint intrusion projected out? Is it not clear that RST is redirecting back? "Going with the feeling" doesn't do that. Wouldn't it be a good time to redirect when feelings come up? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that feeling memory would the most powerful place for the use of RST? I had a dramatic ( to me) incident at work where all of these exgaggerated feelings came up....and I redirected them. Continually. The situation evaporated, and insights followed. And by the way, my reference groups have all but evaporated. In about two years. With insights of the most profound kind. RST when imprints intrude then. Especially using dream images of parents that have a lot of "felt sense" to them. But again, I can see that primalers would be very hard pressed to accept that lack of re-living could bring the "post primal state". Elnora Van Winkle was living proof that it did. The woman was schizophrenic! Her work and writings make is absolutely clear that she no longer had that condition.

But perhaps she was wrong. Her claim of a few months to post-flood reduces credibility. But I'm hearing that people are taking 20 years to deal with the earliest of feeling memories...such as birth trauma? Wow.

Now that birth trauma has been brought into this discussion, I would have to say that I'm not sure about Dennis's comment that "primal and RST are basically the same."

One thing for sure, for me personally, this discussion has opened up a ton of avenues. A very good discussion for me as I am in learning mode about primal therapy and what it means in practical real life terms. Having done hundreds of hours of RST, I think I was too insulated in one point of view.

Phil...again...that link to Jim Pulano's work was of great value to me. Thanks.

John
Locked