Primal Therapy and Sex Differences

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

Post by Guest »

Phil,

Yes, it's challenging to evolve and develop the area of Primal Theory. I'm pretty fascinated by it, and I believe if I hadn't had PTSD, there is no way I would have been interested in putting it together. I will get across this concept of status so that terms of reference can be cleaned up to bring understanding. I also appreciate your neutral curiosity in considering it.

What Janov stumbled across is huge. It starts to cross into all kind of fields and perspectives. Imagine VanWinkle coming out and saying, "post-flood is post-primal". Dennis clearly saw this and included RST on this site. Just this week I was reading about kundalini yoga, and unbelievably, there it is again: RST. Primal Theory.

Our brain falls into cyclic neurotoxicity as a result of emotional repression of the fight/flight mechanism during early traumatic incidents or deprivations occurring in our infancy. Thus the neurotoxicity that is addressed in kundalini awakenings is the repressive mechanism built into our primary matrix (0-5 years development). This initial patterning becomes the template for ongoing emotional repression which interferes with the smooth running of our catecholamine "activating" neurons. (The Catecholamine metabolism proceeds from tyrosine, to DOPA, to dopamine to norepinephrine and then to epinephrine.)
Amazing stuff. And it goes on and on. Tying in primal theory to yoga? I wouldn't have even GUESSED that one.

Status is the "money" of transactions in human beings. It's how we are even able to relate to others. It's how we relate to our uncle Earnie and even our dog. To the kid wheeling by on his bike. Our therapist. Ourselves. It's our order of the social universe. It's so damn simple that it took me about 2 years to believe it. Now I see it everywhere. Maybe a new word is needed. The traditional meaning of "status" only touches on what it means. Integrating it into primal theory makes it clearer every day. I kind of get both dismayed and thrilled by having discovered it.

How could primal theory be involved with RST, codependency, family systems and status? I think ( for me) the movement into an upgrade primal theory was VanWinkle ( and she says nothing about sex differences and the "money" of status in human relationships). I was quite taken aback when I saw Dennis add it to this site. It's like an annoying fly in the ointment of what everyone already knows.

I liked what you said about "innate characteristics distorted by pain". This is what I believe I am after too. After noticing that people I used to know STOPPED CALLING in varying degrees as I got better and better, I really began to wonder what "invisible" communication is going on between people? How do they know? I mean I'm talking 20 people. I didn't have a fight with them or do much different...but they are different to me. Because I'm different. I'm far less neurotic.

I had been using my projected innate characteristics ...and RST'd them. Using EVERYONE who was around me. I didn't think or theorize. I just did it ( redirected).

Primal theory ( RST). RST is about codependency...and all of these innate characteristics held in me are simulatenously held outside of me, as I make my way towards "leaving home" ( Bradshaw, Homecoming). My family repeat got healed.

If you asked the people on the primal support group how they were in a blind spot, they would say to you what you've said to me. "What are you saying, we're working on the pain. What other people in this group and my therapists do are independent of that." And they are. But they are only going as far as the mirroring and society that THEY identify with. That THEY project over. Just as you and I do. This is the human being. Primal work CRACKS this open and allows pain to flow out and lower and higher brain to talk. RST shows how this occurs from conception to early infant life. That's the main part of it all. The whole POINT is that these defences are completely buried and facing them would be like sticking a sharp stick in your own eye. It isn't going to happen!

Talking about "society" as a place to wonder about how I'm doing...and others are doing....as far as healthy human interaction is a bit of an unearned leap in many cases I believe. Primal work is about social networks in a far far more intimate sense. And I believe VanWinkle. It's about slowly unravelling codependency ( the projections of primal pain). Seeking change at the "large group" level where suppressed primal pain has been an agent in forming that group might be projective.

I mean it is really all about me and my innate characteristics. I don't think a single human being, once he feels good ( balanced), believes he is in a mirroring position with all around him and society.

I just couldn't get into balance.....and thus I continued to "see" that I was projecting in a huge way. I still am. Just different and perhaps much much less.

The people who bring up status have done so in evolutionary terms
(things like attraction and mating). Guys like Keith Johnstone revolutionized theatre recognizing that status was the main event in human interactions. His Book "Impro" is now in many languages. It's a GREAT book ( here in Santiago it exists in Spanish).

Here's a guy who talks all day long about status in Improv theatre. Everything became more real when it was recognized. Just reading the first few pages will be enough to get what status is after and what is means...and how it would touch the deepest human emotions. And how it would be laced through codependency ( the root of primal theory).

http://www.keithjohnstone.com/


I got beat up by hanging around feminized therapy circles for years and years NOT realizing the impact of codependency, status and primal theory.
It cost me the emergence of my deepest identity. Masculinity. Without PTSD I wouldn't have seen it.

And the detox from RST??? That was as about a brutal an experience as I can imagine ( now that I'm being kinder to myself).

Since RST isn't re-living, maybe that's where we are also coming into some strange territory.

Even if the whole picture doesn't emerge in our discussion, for me it is making me really think about where I've been and where I'm going in this primal work.

It's not that unusual for new ideas to create confusion. How many people would even begin to understand traditional primal theory? Most would think we are nuts.

John

I just found this review on the book. You're not the only one who would be scratching their head on the status thing. I certainly was...as was this person:
First of all, I have to admit that the first couple of sections are pretty dry. I had to struggle to get through the section on "Status" ... I was thinking to myself, why did people give this BORING book a good review?? ... I did consider that maybe it's because the man is British (I think), and so the style of writing and the type of humor is a little different than I'm used to.

However, when he gets around to talking about the story/narrative, suddenly there is a flash of brilliance and it all started to make sense ... basically he talks about just letting GO of the things that are inhibiting us, how to stop listening to the voice that is telling us NO all the time ... and, I don't know, there's just something very profound in the way that he discusses it - little insights here and there that are just, for lack of a better word, very MEANINGUL.

For example, he says, of parents and teachers who scold their children, to keep their undesirable 'creativeness' under wraps: "... when these children grow up, and perhaps crack up, then they'll find themselves in therapy groups where they'll be encouraged to say all the things that the teacher would have forbidden during school." SO TRUE. This is what all the group therapies in Psych hospitals do - try to bring back the creativeness of the child. Why do we limit it in the first place??
User avatar
Clare
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:44 am
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Kundalini and Primal

Post by Clare »

Our brain falls into cyclic neurotoxicity as a result of emotional repression of the fight/flight mechanism during early traumatic incidents or deprivations occurring in our infancy. Thus the neurotoxicity that is addressed in kundalini awakenings is the repressive mechanism built into our primary matrix (0-5 years development). This initial patterning becomes the template for ongoing emotional repression which interferes with the smooth running of our catecholamine "activating" neurons. (The Catecholamine metabolism proceeds from tyrosine, to DOPA, to dopamine to norepinephrine and then to epinephrine


John,

I know this is off topic, but mayI ask you where the above quote came from?

I was catapulted into primalling as a result of spontaneous Kundalini awakening, several years ago, and have read several books on Kundalini, but nothing like the above.

Clare
Clare
User avatar
Clare
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:44 am
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Kundalini and Primal

Post by Clare »

John,

I found it.

Many thanks

Clare
Clare
Guest

Post by Guest »

Hi John,

This clears up quite a bit for me what you mean by status.
I am understanding that it is one's standing or position in relationships and emotional transactions.


I have to say that it is a pleasure for me to feel your enthusiasm
for the primal/RST process. It is very powerful.
To me it has been the most amazing thing that I have encountered
in my life. What is frustrating is that it is almost impossible
to be able to share this with nonprimallers. They just don't get it.
It is the difference between talking about changes happening in a
person by trying to think differently and actually becoming different.

I think that the limits to primal are the defenses of the individual and
the amount of pain he or she has to deal with.
People are walking around with varying amounts of pain and most of
them think that they feel OK and that their lives are OK.
People won't want to try a rigorous process like primalling unless
they are feeling real bad and/or want major changes in their lives.
Therapists and experienced primallers may be able to pick out people's projections and the ways their personalitie"s are "unreal" but nothing can be done about that until the person sees it as a large problem in his or her life. Sometimes defenses are so stubborn that it will be very difficult to get to the pain. It takes a lot of hard work.
The times when primalling has made the most progress for me has
been when my life was in a crisis. It seems like without those periods of crisis I wouldn't have been able to access deeper levels of pain.
Primal has also become a tool which enables me to deal with any deep and painful current issues which might arise in my life. I can then deal with current issues and use them to get to my past pains. Without being able to do this my life wouldn't make much sense.

You may be interested to know that in New York City a form primal combined with theater evolved and is still active. I really don't know much about it since I haven't experienced it.

Phil
Guest

Post by Guest »

Phil,

I appreciate you acknowledging my passion for this subject. That feels good to hear. Your comments about deep work and people not doing it unless they feel very bad or want major changes in life is bang on. My good friend here says "el ser humano es muy huevon". The human being is very "dense-foolish". It's just in our nature. All those higher order brain tasks couldn't get done without a bunch of denial it seems.

I'm really in learning mode with this right now and don't know what is going to happen. After 3 pretty awful years of RST detox, bigger stuff is coming up ( does it end??). I'm pretty happy about it. But really damn scared right now. I didn't need to hear about that kundalini tie-in ( I was already saturated as it was) and passed a couple of very frightening nights of ego-busting feelings. Like really bad. It's been excellent. Just a little beyond my limits. Maybe a lot....

Here in Chile it seems as if there is no help. But it's not true.....people are the same wherever you go, and if you want help, it will be there. I am just so puzzled about how completely these old contacts go out like a light switch and new ones or renovated ones appear as deep feeling emerges.

My sister is adopting an abandoned baby and my brother-in-law is asking about the "possible effects" on the baby ( he's a great guy). They just don't realize what's involved. He was asking about nutrition. There is so little knowledge about primal work in the general public that one has to learn to live with this fact and simply be grateful for winning the "therapy lottery". I can't see it getting any better than what we're talking about here.

I'm learning as I go.

Primal theatre seems like a great idea. A friend of mine does theatre work here and when he talks about what he's doing it does share many principles in common. All they work with is status. My knowledge on that is just starting to grow, and these last 2 months have been extraordinarily dynamic. As you say, only being in crisis has driven change.

El ser humano es my huevon ( say that to a Chilean up there...they'll laugh).

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

Post by Dennis »

John, you're bringing in a lot of interesting and important issues, but it's going in too many directions.

Perhaps codependency in Primal Theory doesn't get the attention it should have. It sure deals with defences directly. John, in Stettbachers book Making Sense of Suffering, he deals with codependent relationships and gives a very good example. I don't have the English translation so I can't give you the exact quote.

Status... My dictionary says: a person's position or rank in relation to other's.

What I would like to know if you have status on your mind every time you meet or see another human being.

If you mean status is how we behave to other people (or even animals), then I agree that it's important. And you can see alot of defences in people's behavior to others or even to their pets. But also those people you want to avoid in life, they can bring up old Pain.
Don?t forget, the man who is leading is FOLLOWED. This man is a servant. He has a self. He is integrated.
Do you mean in a relationship or in general? If I choose to learn something, for example picking mushrooms in the forest and there's a woman who can teach me which ones are the good ones and which ones are poisenous , how does that make me less of a man?

A 3-month-old baby boy who gets sexually abused, only experiences pain. The connection to his masculinity comes at a later age. If you think a baby is aware of his gender, could it be that you look at it from an adult's point of view.
Yes, the issue for the boys who shot those students, and what has happened in the states last week and this...is primal. All about suppressed fight or flight response. And this is my personal issue. This is why it interests me.
The structures of power (abuse) are very strong in our society. Michael Moore's strength is exposing political and social abuse where other people don't see that. Defences need to be broken down carefully. But I personally would love to see a documentary about a case like that (kids shooting others) and the background and abusive family systems that are behind it. That would be an interesting project to work on.

Moore also wrote a very honest book called Stupid White Men. Since we're talking about men, have you read it?

Dennis
Guest

Post by Guest »

Dennis,

This does appear to go in many directions since assumptions grow like branches. Codependency? Most people talk about primal as if this isn?t the root of primal pain. Defences remain in place. Masculinity? Femininity? Most people talk about these terms as if they were ?learned? ( this is actually a socialist idea and doesn?t have much history). The knee jerks and sexual diversity ( in primates) reduces quickly to ?being less of a man? by accepting wisdom from women ( women hold the soul of humanity and a man who can?t feel it is dead inside). Social activism as a turning point for helping humanity deal with and release it?s primal pain. It?s simply a way of victimizing the masses further and believing the projection of ?big bad Dad?.

You know, it?s said that you shouldn?t judge a book by it?s cover but I?m going to go out on a limb here and make an exception. Moore went along with his narcissism and even had the art work widen his shoulders a bit. Tough stuff. Take a look at the standard wikipedia search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_White_Men

How would this ?social activist? frame this cover? ?Tongue in cheek?. A ?joke? because he?s ?harmless Joe Sixpack?. And he also gets away with it because the only group in society that would stand up to him would be right wing loonies who believe in what he believes in: A polarized non-primal world. Anyone with a more moderate criticism ( non-right wing?such as primal)?wouldn?t even be heard. Take a look at the book the same publisher marketed to play off of the sensationalism ( like Moore does).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mo ... _White_Man

Although the new book feeds Moore?s publicity and kills any useful attempt to frame Moore for what he really is, it does contain some disclaimers. It wasn?t just me sitting in the audience in Chile as they flashed a ?statistic? on the screen saying??hey?wait a minute, that?s not true?.

My concern is people thinking that codependency is healed by ?group social action?. Isn?t this what builds it? Isn?t ?leaving home? the idea for primal therapy? Or is it something else?

In the end Moore creates what he fights against?a non-feeling victim culture that denies the organic small group nature of human beings. Codependency. Victims and perpetrators. Bradshaw ( Bradshaw on the Family) takes it from there and adds something worth considering. Roles to protect primal pain. ?Hero?, ?Mom?s buddy?, ?Lost one??on and on and on. The reaction of people in a primal pain stuffed society where individualism has been lost. Isn?t this what primal therapy tries to regain? But defences rear up. Philosophies like socialism and overall government interference freeze them in place. And the natural ?alternative? is to think that ?capitalism? is the suggested antedote and enemy ( nice projection). Aren?t we talking about primal pain here? Why bring in these lumbering perverse modern social systems? They are a disaster and thankfully there is no hope for them.

Could it be that we people who latch on to our terms do so exactly to the level of our own personal defences? ( and our reference groups match this....including therapists and "partners"). I doubt our hardware has shifted that much in the last 20,000 years. I don?t think any scientist could ever claim man has ?adapted? to the level of getting away with suppressing primal pain. It's a fantasy.

This thread?s value could be making clearer sexual differences as a place for taking down more defences. Codependency. De-selfment. ( no-feeling or numbness) And understanding that defences are always held in codependency (nobody ever holds a neurotic defence ?with themselves?). Neurotic defence means an uncleaned codependent ( primal) issue where someone ?out there? is going to hurt me. And it?s a projection. Unowned pain. Imagine the confusion when believing that it?s about ?pain? as ?pain? and that?s it. That is NOT it. When a man raises huge defences in a relationship with a woman ( for example) it is often because he has connected to ideas like ?equality? and ?learned sexuality?.

When a man isn?t a man I?d say his biggest problem will come not from the ?conversion? experience into masculinity a man has, but rather his blocks developmentally. What is a man? Here it is: Pre-natal, age 1-3, 3-12, 12-18, 18-25, 25-35, 35-60, 60-80. It?s a developmental organic process matching the 4 billion cellular context out of which humans emerged. Carl Jung would not take a patient unless he was over 35.

An organic process presented as being taught. Imagine that. This is the source of the primal pain for many a man. The teaching that goes against the grain of what we really are is what creates the fight or flight suppression in the first place.

Since I am a fan of primal therapy I?d have to say that the greatest problem in masculinity comes from the first two categories?.mostly pre-natal though. This is when the co-dependent network is imprinted on the neural net in it?s most profound way. This is where the noradrenergic neurons atrophy and detox crisises are born ( pure RST theory). I?d like to learn about ?Making Sense of Suffering?. Maybe there is some way I can make peace with what appears to be a big hole in primal theory. Evidenced by some of the perversions that can come out of it ( such as the support group suggested, and the idea of getting people to pay huge money to do this work and therapists trained by only one source).

I find the quantum leap into social action from pain-numbed folk like Michael Moore to really miss the point. He?s not even talking about anything that matters to the human being. Sexual identity, family identity, individual identity, tribal identity?..and the enormous differences between men and women. All buried in his own unresolved primal issues.

I?m sure Michael Moore is a great guy, but I doubt he believes that. He simply has no identity....and that is the issue at hand here. That is what primal therapy is all about. Regaining identity ( self). Codependency is DE-SELFMENT.

I think your idea about doing a documentary regarding family systems on the people behind the school shootings and weaving it into American society is a great idea. I also think that THAT might be a postive social action ( a kind of activism that makes sense to me).

Did you know that John Bradshaw ( a former severe alcoholic) did a show on PBS about Family Systems Theory in 1984. It was so impactful ( he had this mobile on the stage...he'd touch one part and the whole thing would move) that he went on to sell a million copies of his follow up book?

But he left out sexual differences.......and even tried to be "fair" and use "she" as a replacement for "he" etc in obvious ways. Nothing's perfect. I believe his work is a gift to people suffering from unresolved primal pain.

Adding sex differences and focusing on the pre-natal and first years of life stages as the source of the problem ( blocked defences) could be very interesting.

John
Guest

Post by Guest »

Here's the book review:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 5945.shtml

Check out the ad in the margin that says "Memory Training Secrets". A nice lighthearted touch.
User avatar
Dennis
Site Admin
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Dennis »

Your reference to ?Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man? seems to me a poor attempt from the publisher to cash in on some easy money. Obviously the book flopped enormously because what I?ve read in that review is very poor journalism, if one can call it journalism. First of all, why would it be a surprise that it?s published by the same publisher? Stupid White Man was first published by a very small publisher but when success came around the corner, the big publishing sharks came as well. Moore is an activist and he wants to spread his message to as many people as possible.

Because of the absence of sources in the review, and the many personal insults to Moore, it makes its message clear. I always doubt an article where the writer attacks the person and not the arguments. You may want to check out this site: http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php

A quote:
The most damning indictment of Moore in "Big Fat Stupid White Man": the salute offered by Imam Samudra, leader of the Muslim terrorist bombers who murdered 202 people, mostly Australians and other tourists, two years ago at Paddy's nightclub in Bali.

"I saw lots of whiteys dancing and lots of whiteys drinking there," Samudra told Indonesian police. The authors note, "It was 'Kill Whitey' [quoting a chapter heading in "Stupid White Men"] with a vengeance."


If this is the worst that the author can find, then that says a lot about the rest of the book. ?Kill Whitey? is a phrase from the black political movement from the 1960 and 1970s. Many rap songs are about ?Kill Whitey?. All long before Moore wrote his book. As if Imam Samudra personally dedicated his terrorist act to Moore.

Moore isn?t against capitalism, he?s against corporate abuse. Unfortunately that thrives well in capitalism. So good for him he bought an expensive house. A lot of right-wingers were very upset about Moore, which means he touched a sensitive nerve. Moore?s documentaries have his strong opinion in it and it should be like that. Not many people say that Errol Morris? documentaries lack objectivity and are therefore bad documentaries. What they do is creating a message. There has been a number of websites created by the spin doctors to attack Moore and therefore created doubt to his message. However, Moore replied to those attacks by listing the facts presented in his movie Fahrenheit 911: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films ... .php?id=16

Stupid White Man was written with a lot of humor but the message was clear: there are very stupid men in power.

Bradshaw is good in describing abusive situations but when it comes to solutions, he goes into opposite directions (of Primal). He encourages forgiveness for example. That says a lot about his motivation. And popularity.

You wrote:
Neurotic defence means an uncleaned codependent ( primal) issue where someone ?out there? is going to hurt me. And it?s a projection.
Unless there?s really someone out there who?s going to hurt you. For example, if the quality of the air is so bad, a person cannot breathe properly anymore, is that only a projection? A healthy person is aware of himself and of his environment.

Is there such a big hole in Primal when it comes to gender? How would you explain that some men started to develop chest hair and a deepened voice and women larger breasts in primal therapy?

Belief systems are there to keep the pain in place. As Janov said in Prisoners of Pain:
The more stubborn and fanatic the ideas are, the more defensive someone gets in regard to every interference. The person in question believes passionately in those ideas without being aware that they are critical defence mechanisms. He defends his views because they defend him.

And even if you don?t see it or want to admit it, your theories are complicated.

Dennis
Guest

Post by Guest »

Dennis,

I feel some good stuff is coming here now. People think status is complicated. Then when they understand it they realize that all the defences in place in the human mind that take it out of the picture is far far more complicated. And that status is simple. Too simple. I can't apologize for challenging the paradigm here.

Moore isn't a bad guy, I just think HE thinks he is. That's why his world has not even a hint of the therapy we talk about here. That's why he's in the stratosphere talking about "bad guys". Notice that they are all usually faceless....until he focuses on stupid white guys? Who cares? George Bush is a boob. So is Roger...and me. Who cares? Primal pain is primal pain. I don't think this therapy can be extrapolated into a mutli-million member society held together by a phony media. I don't think people "will see" by "showing them" any more than I could "see" the wreckage of past primal pain by someone telling me. I don't think that corporate abuse in a shanty town economic system that won't last even a few hundred years has much to do with primal theory. I don't.

If Michael were consistent and congruent, fine. He isn't. Is he a good guy? Of course. Is it a crime to talk about what doesn't matter? I'd say that every human being alive would be guilty of it. Michael can stand in front of a food processing plant that produces venom and lament how the bad guys put a bunch of "Americans" ( what is that term?) out of work. Insanity. He's a politician. Don't forget that "terrorists" attack "Americans" just as "Democrats" attack "stupid white guys". Lots of projection. Lots of primal pain. The book against him is even more out there and irrelevant to primal issues, and lacks credibility. Just like Moore. What's good about Moore might be that he gets people to see the scam of corporate abuse ( maybe they could then see the whole system) . What's bad about Moore is that he sells the idea that people are in trouble because of corporate abuse. I disagree. I think it's a primal issue. Moore doesn't.

I'd like to learn more about the vital sign and other measured aspect of changes coming out of primal therapy. What you mentioned sounds very interesting and I had heard that before. Again we seem to be thinking that ( and this is the error) sex differences boil down to puberty. It's a part of it, and clearly deep emotional release is going to get the pituitary, pineal and thyroid moving along. It's going to get people rolling forward with their right biology. Emotions aren't "concepts". But remember that we were talking about sex differences as an organic process and that I had even put forward that the most important part of sexual development ( sex differences) is pre-natal, where the imprints occur. Where our family system ( and the society it is in) begin to produce fight or flight suppression ( anger suppression). "Mom and Dad aren't man and woman in the way my brain sees it."...is the felt sense. Primally of course. Atrophication. Primal pain. False self. Primal therapy deals with this. Codependency.

But if sex differences are learned and evolution as a concept belongs exclusively to Richard Dawkins? Well. I doubt we can go much further and would have to agree to disagree. I'm saying it's about defences. There's got to be a reason why a bunch of people doing primal therapy can exchange 35,000 messages over 7 years and end up like one androgenous feeling mass. Whew. I can't see how these people in a feeling world could possible mate. Were you aware that the lowly banana might come off the shelves in 10-20 years due to lack of genetic diversity? Reality doesn't go away just because of a breakthrough therapy presented by a guy who wants to own it ( and thus creates lots of blind spots...just by that alone).

Bananas: http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/new ... 20-en.html


What a great reminder about Bradshaw. He totally missed the boat with forgiveness. This is exactly right in my opinion. He sure did go a long long way though. But he didn't turn to deep emotional release. You can aslo see that he is protecting his mother and unresolved with his alcoholic Dad by the complete lack of emphasis on defences created by ignoring sexes. It was the time of the writing though. All the main CODA writers of the 80s are women. All talk uni-sex.

Imagine for a moment the additional primal pain that could come out if therapists and healing therapies focused on the reality of sex differences
(instead of accepting the conventional wisdom that they are "taught" and that it amounts to genitals and hormones....that's just the finishing process.....the man who has had his process supported from conception to age 2 will likely be the deepest man and the most spiritual man).

For now? We have people banding together talking about a androgenous society...where leadership as a male quality is thought to be "sexist". Crazy. But that's how it is.

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

Post by John »

Dennis, you brought up a good point with this:


My Quote:
Neurotic defence means an uncleaned codependent ( primal) issue where someone ?out there? is going to hurt me. And it?s a projection.

Yours:
Unless there?s really someone out there who?s going to hurt you. For example, if the quality of the air is so bad, a person cannot breathe properly anymore, is that only a projection? A healthy person is aware of himself and of his environment.
----------------

I live in one of the most air polluted cities on the planet. Right now it's raining, so we get a break ( God's an activist).

I guess what it come down to is the break I see with activism and primal therapy, which is an individual effort....for self. And only for self. I'm not clear yet on how social responsibility plays out in this. It seems like a defence to me. I'm not sure social responsibility really has to do with self in the examples you site of taking action. Maybe I'm missing something big here. I also admit that these threads are pretty theoretical in that they don't talk about personal experience too much, but that might be appropriate in this context too.

The idea of someone hurting me. I agree with you on this one. It's just that in a lot of the examples you provide I see a blur between a neurotic defence and a healthy defence. Like Michael Moore as an example. I don't see him as capable of social responsibility nor interested in it. I think a post-primal person would be interested in it, and would be very capable of it. But if it wasn't working out, the post-primal person isn't connecting the "power" holders to positions of power that were percieved as overwhelming in childhood. Thus it's not a neurotic defence.

Maybe this clarifies the confusion somewhat.

I'd like to see the concept of social action in the context of emotional reality. Is it possible? I'm not sure. With our media? I'm even less sure.

Wouldn't radical change in self be the answer and wouldn't that need to be absolutely highlighted every step of the way for an activist? I don't see that happening, and feel that primal work is being used to justify some kind of projection with a lot of "concerned people".

Maybe a compromise could be worked out...some kind of framework. Not just "all or nothing".


John

(this was 5 years ago and nothing has really changed that much...people want their consumerism addictions...and they're responsible for that...not "big bad Dad". What's the solution?)

http://www.tierramerica.net/2001/0520/iacentos.shtml
Mojo

Post by Mojo »

John wrote:I'd like to see the concept of social action in the context of emotional reality. Is it possible? I'm not sure. With our media? I'm even less sure.
I thought you might be interested to know that there is a university psychologist called Michael Milburn who supports Alice Miller's ideas about poisonous pedagogy. He explained the concept in a Newsweek Magazine interview about the enthusiasm for war in America:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4972441/

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

Post by John »

Good link Mojo, and it's good to see some people know the score. I thought about this and tried to understand the connection to me ( there is one). And to others ( there is one). I don't think it's one from which action could flow ( through which channels and for what? Who is changing and why? What's to improve and why? For whom? What is this system? Where is it going? Would the changes proposed make a difference?). It's somehow a relief to hear a person talking about Alice Miller's concepts in politics anyway. It's a start.

After this dicussion it's also clear to me that action coming from male-female identity in modern society is difficult indeed. Ask anyone on this forum or in society in general what is a man with respect to male identity and what is a woman with respect to female identity. What do you think you'd come up with? Most people wouldn't bother to ask this question because they don't know or understand the emotional numbness coming from not believing it's a critical issue. A fish doesn't know it's wet.

One of the most amazing things that have come out of Richard Dawkin's (et al) work is the huge boom in dating technology ( identifying primal realities amongst humans). The evolution reality was picked up by a group of young business people and converted into a HUGE business. It's all through the media these days. Why? Because it's real. It works. It's status in action. Love it or hate it. Understand it or be confused by it. Agree or disagree. It's real. Sexual attraction exists and works in very defined ways. And it's just the beginning of a huge set of differences. This is what is being denied in primal therapy and kept amidst the defences.

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

The more complicated the therapy
The more terrified the therapist
- consequence of the First Law of Regressive Therapy

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

The fish is unknowingly wet. So I guess that's that.

I found a very cheesy clip from a major U.S. media source which did a piece on the pick up artists using Dawkin's work ( Survival and Replication...the Selfish Gene). Amazing. Of course they're all addicts and only care about what women want to fill a primal hole. BUT. They are on to a driver in human reality. Sex differences. It's only the beginning.

The therapy community is quite simply...feminized. Which is not a bad thing...if you're a woman. But even for a woman it's not great, since men around her are feminized...creating reference groups and pain blockers she also will not be aware of. In an absolutely feminized and addicted society. Sexuality in the modern world is quite simply...genital. And the rest is "pain"...which men and women both have, and "pain is pain". End of story. So the discussion is pretty much closed on this point of primal therapy and sex differences. Buried among the defences.

Enjoy the clip...I hope it leaves some scratching their head for the connection. I'm just happy I see it for now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pudr0Aut8M4

( Note how the media just looks at the smoke and flash. They have no idea that this movement started with Richard Dawkins, and even "celebrate" the protaganist's success of being a "nerd" who "won" the "lead guitarist" from "Courtney Love's band ( a group of addicts)" ( the media is of course driven by status too....having no idea of the wild codependencies arising from extracting this small part of natural selection out of context).
Locked