Welcome Guest (Register -  Login)  Display List of Forum Members Memberlist Search The Forum Search forum topics Search psychologists Search psychologists Help Help
 Navigation

Username

Password

Auto Login
Add me to the active users list


Forgot password | Register



 Latest Forum Posts

We have 6629 registered users.
The newest registered user is Hollaway.

Our users have posted a total of 2990 articles within 1173 topics in 15 forums.
Last post by hoowei

Issues relating to practice
 Psychotherapy.co.za - Discussion GroupsIssues relating to practice
Subject Topic: Psychology is dysfunctional Post ReplyPost New Topic
 Psychology is dysfunctional
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Robin
Posted: 2004 March 26 at 11:42pm | IP Logged Quote Robin
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 March 09
Posts: 8

Having had a significant relationship with psychology (study, work, therapy) for a significant number of years, and having moved away from it for as significant a length of time, I have had this insight.

Psychology empowered me to completely disempower myself. It taught me powerful interpersonal skills, opened me to a new level of awareness, and helped me into the workings of myself. But ultimately it lead me away from myself. It trained me into an indentity crisis. I'm not saying I wasn't lost to begin with, but psychology was a life-changing tool that didn't know where to lead me. Thus, it led me into its neurosis.

The more psychology I learned, the less I knew who I was. The language and dynamics of the people speaking it, and its compounding, fractal-like meta-ness drew me away from a crystalised self, away from the me who knows how to be myself without necessarily knowing anything about that self. Psychology led me away from the mystery of being, into a quagmire of mind. I was depressed on psychology.

Luckily, psychology had plenty of words for my condition. Unluckily, that didn't help me one bit. It was a quicksand of words for a worsening condition.

I know this is dramatically put here, and that's admittedly for effect, and I know it sounds ungrateful, but I think I have a point. I look forward to anything you, my fellow readers of this fine new forum, have to say on it.
 
View Robin's Profile Search for other posts by Robin Visit Robin's Homepage Back to Top
 
jana
Posted: 2004 April 16 at 4:15pm | IP Logged Quote jana
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 April 16
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3

It would be very interesting to see a reaction to this post.

I wonder whether the fact that this post comes from an amateur not directly involved in the practice of psychology(if I understand her correctly), has anything to do with the significant absence of replies to the post. Significant absence - am I hearing giggles of hilarity, from the people for whom this post has given no reason whatsoever to respond, due perhaps to it's meaningless?

It would be greatly interesting to see what the response to this post might be from a "professional".  This is afterall a discussion forum.

Come on, indulge the amateur mind enthusiasts out there. Or do I have this completely wrong?

 Humbly....

 Just say the moon is full.

 
View jana's Profile Search for other posts by jana Back to Top
 
DavidvdW
Posted: 2004 April 22 at 11:25pm | IP Logged Quote DavidvdW

Admin Group
Admin Group


Group: Admin Group
Joined: 2004 March 04
Location: South Africa
Posts: 366

First off - thanks to Robin and Jana for putting something into this hitherto empty forum. The aim here is to build a quality and fun resource for therapists and "amateur mind enthusiasts" alike and interactivity is the key to this. So again - your contributions are appreciated.

As a professional therapist I view it as my responsibility to maintain a somewhat critical eye, not only on my own practice of therapy but also on the field in general. (I have assumed psychology in this context to refer specifically to therapeutic psychology) and Robin's critical post sparked some not very organised thoughts and here they are.

Dysfunctional and neurosis are two of psychology's favourite words - so juicy and its hard not to feel some sense of power when using them. This is what makes them so problematic to me - when we use these words we distance ourselves from the person we are describing, we imply some fault located in this person. Implicit in a diagnosis of dysfunction or neurosis is the relief that we feel that it is not us who is afflicted. These words imply the "wrongness" of the other, the deficiency of the other, at least when compared with the person making the diagnosis. So they are psychologically convenient and expedient too because they exonerate us from looking at factors outside of the bounded confines of an individual's skin as we seek to understand or know about what creates distress.

There's more about this vocabulary - specifically it implies the existence of psychological "disorder" or mental ill health as existing in a material sense in say the same way that chicken pox or cancer does. Depression is not a "thing" in the same way that rabies or Crohn's disease can be said to have "real" existence. Its just a word we give to a particular set of human experiences. But this vocabulary, because it draws on a western scientific tradition of empiricism and the "discovery" of facts, insists on the truthfulness of these terms as accounts of human experience. In the face of this kind of "truth claim" other accounts of what "depression" might be are relegated to the status of lay knowledge or are seen as somehow inferior. This obscures from view other descriptions of persons - it impoverishes the extent to which a person's experience of themselves and the world can be described. In short this medically oriented vocabulary closes down avenues of exploration and description because it allows us to describe someone as depressed or as socially phobic or personality disordered.

These critical arguments are not new and have been far more comprehensively and incisiely rehearsed elsewhere, Szasz, Laing, Goffman, Gergen are a few of the well known proponents of these viewpoints.

Recently some psychotherapists have attempted to address these difficulties by importing ideas from literary citicism, critical social psychology, hermeneutics, cybernetics and ecological studies. These intitiatives (White's Narrative psychology, the social constructionist and systemic approaches) attempt to create awareness that description is a creative act, and that observations say as much about the frame of reference of the observer as they do about the "thing" being observed. These approaches in general try to adopt a vocabulary that does away with descriptions of person's based on the search for some deficit or lack (of coping skills, personal resources, brain chemistry etcetera) in favour of more empowering and positively framed accounts of people and their lives.

But perhaps I'm not addressing what I take to be the primary thrust of Robin's initial post - that psychology, in its efforts to know of any kind runs the risk of distancing people from a self that exists separate from any attempt to understand it. Thus far, I have only suggested that there are different modes or ways in which psychology can describe persons and that  these modes offer certain possibilities for understanding and obscure others. But I haven't discussed the view that any meta-perspective is obstructive of the expression of a self that exists and "is" outside of how we understand it. This is what I interpret Robin's post to be alluding to. I'm not sure if I've got it correct. If this is the case then I have a difficulty because I believe that we cannot not know. It seems to me to be a basic feature of consciousness that we carry awareness of an "I" that "is". At rare points we may lose ourselves in a moment - while engaged in strenuous physical exercise or really good love-making or in meditation perhaps but in the everyday course of life I think we cannot not adopt some meta-perspective on our being. Language is structured like this I (subject) act upon object. I do think we have tremendous choice in terms of what the flavour and nuance of this meta-perspective is and some are more useful than others and all make certain ways of being available to us and obscure others but we must construe our being in some way.

But now - is psychology dysfunctional? I think it is a discipline fraught with problems and rich in potential. I don't want to dismiss the profession so simply. The psychology shelves in bookshops and libraries are full of rubbish yes, but they also contain beautiful and soulfully crafted writing about this bewildering experience of humanness that we all share.

I prefer to see psychology's function in a cultural or anthropological sense. Perhaps paychology is a manifestation of western culture's attempts to deal with itself - the lenses and theories that psychology provides are perhaps cultural artefacts - representations of our society's efforts to make sense of those aspects of itself that do not serve the best and highest expression of our humanness?

In this regard psychology has put forward some pretty good ideas. For example - the notion that the alleviation of distress can occur in relationships characterised by respect, positive regard and a desire for the highest good of the other, the notion that human relationships can be as destructive and painful as they can be rewarding, the systemic and social constructionist notion that through relationship we participate in something much larger than ourselves and one or two others are, to my mind, valuable contributions.

I'm interested to hear from others, "amatuers" and "professionals" alike. These thoughts of mine are half formed and loosely expressed. It is not my intention to create a forum where only polished and academic prose is welcome but to create a free and easy space for the exchange of ideas and information.

-----------

David van der Want

 
View DavidvdW's Profile Search for other posts by DavidvdW Visit DavidvdW's Homepage Back to Top
 
Robin
Posted: 2004 April 29 at 10:46pm | IP Logged Quote Robin
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 March 09
Posts: 8

The copy of the Oxford Dictionary that I have with me defines the psyche as “the soul” or “the spirit”. It also gives it a second meaning, “the mind”. The soul and the mind are, however, not the same thing. This is the root of the point I want to make here.

When it comes to psychology, my Oxford Dictionary defines it as “the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context.” And it defines psychotherapy as “the treatment of mental disorder by psychological means”. There is no mention of the soul in either of these definitions: they are all mind.

In my first year of studying psychology, I was taught that the term amounted to “the science of the soul.” This, I say, is where psychology has gone wrong, right at its very beginning. It has tried to explain the soul with the mind. And the soul is inexplicable, a mystery that cannot be explained or grasped by mind. And so, psychology has ended up fixating on mind, and losing touch with soul. This is how and why psychology is dysfunctional.

No more so, though, than society in general. Like most of human consciousness, psychology is almost entirely in the head. And the head is a very limited aspect of the possibilities of human consciousness. There is nothing wrong with mind, it is a powerful tool, but on its own, it is lost.

The mind is reason. The mind is science. It analyses and calculates. It is clever, but it is not intelligent. It can go on forever coming up with interpretations, and arguments for and against something, but it cannot know the truth. Worse still, it dismisses anything that does not fit with its existing inventory. Mind is a self sustaining and self-limiting inventory. On its own, mind is blind and it is dangerous.

But there is nothing wrong with mind. It just needs heart to guide it. And heart is one step closer to soul.

The inner workings of mind are reflected in the mechanical world we have created around us. And our relationship with that world is epitomised by the recurring theme in the popular media of the world being taken over by machines, by our creation, by the mind. We are terrified that the machines will rise and defeat humanity, that the mind will rule the earth. And, it already does!

Our worst fears have been realised. Individually and collectively, we are ruled by mind. Psychology began as the science of the soul, but it has become obsessed with science and has almost no sense of the soul. This is why psychology can teach you so much yet lead you away from yourself. This is why psychology is neurotic. The mind is neurotic.

Living in the head is living in the shallowest level of awareness. It is where most people dwell, mesmerised by illusion and essentially out of touch with their true selves. Language is a function of mind. And the language of psychology sees, describes and works with the mind only, thereby missing most of what’s really going on and occupying itself with, well… itself!

That’s what mind does. That’s what ego does. It occupies itself with itself. It is self conscious. It sustains itself on unconsciousness. Ego is inherently lost. It is the false self. Ego and the mind are the false self. And psychology preoccupies itself with the false self.

Therefore, psychology, as we know it, cannot be transformational. It can analyse, theorise and strategise, which helps, don’t get me wrong. Psychology helps, but only minimally. It helps restore functioning. It helps deviants from the norm work their way back into it. It doesn’t allow the artist to flourish. Psychology is a mind technician, but it cannot transform.

Transformation comes through the heart.

The heart does not lend itself to words or care much for them. Words are thin and meaningless to the heart, like zeros and ones on a computer. The heart likes silence, because in silence it can bloom. And, in silence, the heart finds the soul.

The heart is a portal to the soul. The mind is not. The mind faces in the other direction to the soul. If the soul speaks through the heart and mind, the mind becomes intelligent, but on its own, mind is violent, without being aware of it.

But with heart and soul, mind becomes intelligent. Then it becomes a wonderful tool.

If psychology can find the heart, come from the heart, open the heart, then its dysfunction will begin to fade. If psychology can let go of itself and expand its awareness, as a discipline and in each practitioner, it can let the direction it lacks reveal itself.

The direction is soul. The route is the heart. Psychology needs to move from the head to the heart to the soul.

The heart does not care for diagnosis. It does not label, that is a function purely of the mind. Mind is analysis, reason, knowledge. It is the known, the old, the stale. Worse still, it is the entrenched, empirically substantiated old and stale. The head is dead.

The heart is alive. The soul speaks and connects through the heart. If the head follows, one becomes intelligent. The therapist becomes intelligent. The client becomes intelligent. Psychology becomes intelligent. Transformation occurs.



Edited by Robin on 2004 April 30 at 12:46pm
 
View Robin's Profile Search for other posts by Robin Visit Robin's Homepage Back to Top
 
Beru
Posted: 2004 June 14 at 10:58am | IP Logged Quote Beru

Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 June 08
Posts: 6

About the heart and the mind and the holy body, amen.

I have been wondering for years – while I was experiencing therapy in Europe – why the codes for therapy are so stricts.

I have always been fascinated by exploring and living my own egotistic yet rich self with the help of an intelligent professional (Eliane is her name). I let her pour onto my soul some notions of humanity that are mysterious to me. I believe a shrink– if she is not too ‘shrinky’- can reveal a lot about me, and therefore about mysterious others that I am interested about : my parents !

 

Anthropology is therapy to me and vice versa. We are writing our history while living on this western culture that has gotten us lost in the first place. Sure I find my identity through thereapy – I put it in order and then I try to function between sessions – it is a study to be taken with prudence. Almost like a hobby, a passion, a wild ride.

 

But I do find its codes superficial and disconnected [the codes of therapy] from the worldwide basic knowledge of human therapy. It is looking down at its own navel, I mean by that how separated it is from not only the heart but the whole body.

 

The body in therapy seems to me to be ignored, abandoned, feared and neglected.

I dream of the day where the words said in therapy will be accompagned with other modes of expressions that involves exercices of moves, implying all the senses, always.

 

CraAAzy, hein ?

 

 
View Beru's Profile Search for other posts by Beru Back to Top
 
Lize
Posted: 2004 June 14 at 7:19pm | IP Logged Quote Lize
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 June 08
Location: South Africa
Posts: 18

When therapy is deified, given magical mystical powers and discussed as if it were something separate from the context in which it takes place, then  yes of course therapy is without heart and soul, since we have removed ourselves from the therapeutic conversation.

I have sat in therapy both as client and as therapist and been bored stiff, generally because I wasn't present for myself or for the therapist(client) and then therapy sort of follows a predictable 60 minute ramble - both participants being to polite to stop the process or to comment on it.

Anything into which we don't put our soul is "soul-less". For some reason therapy or psychology rather is expected to just be filled with soul and presence  - because it is just that - the study of the psyche. Like cutting up a frog and expecting to find "frogness". The magic, the mystery and the beauty of therapy takes place in the space between two people - a therapist and a client. We call it therapy, but that space can be created in other ways in other places as well. In other contexts we just don't call it therapy.

That brings me to the rules or codes of therapy that Beru talks about. I think it is true that the therapeutic process can at times seem to be riddled with does and don'ts and that the therapist and client are not in a social relationship and therefor it can seem at times that the process is superficial. Also the body often gets ignored in therapy. But perhaps the other therapeutic means of relating are just less well known. Something like Biodanza is a form of therapy in which you relate through your body and not through words. A facilitator shows you various dances (but the emphasis is on expression not form), some of which are individual and some are with a partner or a group.

If we redefine the context of therapy to include more than just the one on one discussion between client and therapist, but instead consider alternatives like dance, music, massage etc then more is included in the therapeutic space. The ability to use and create different therapeutic approaches requires a creative and innovative therapist, but also a creative and innovative client.

I do not believe that as a therapist I "do" therapy to clients, but rather that a client and I enter into a context defined as a therapeutic space in which something is created between us. the "success" of this creation depends as much on me as therapist as it does on the client. Regardless of the context this still remains a relationship between two human beings and the resulting interaction depends on both people involved.

 



__________________
LS
 
View Lize's Profile Search for other posts by Lize Back to Top
 
Beru
Posted: 2004 June 15 at 4:30pm | IP Logged Quote Beru

Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 June 08
Posts: 6

It seems to me that there is no other reason for compartmenting aproaches but the old fashion conception of an old concept.

From what is good of it we can make it better but just like politics we cannot make changes for the benefits of a large audience that easily.

Our frame of mind is compartmented about everything and psychology remains limited because it is rigid and strict in my sense. Because the time of conversation or communication in therapy is something very precious and beautiful it must be protected and enriched. But if I am speechless and I am stuck it is because dryness in the desert of the intellect between 2 intellectuals is lifeless sometimes.

I have to understand how we came up with hiding behind words.

 

 
View Beru's Profile Search for other posts by Beru Back to Top
 
erikahitge
Posted: 2010 August 04 at 1:00pm | IP Logged Quote erikahitge

Senior Member
Senior Member


Group: Senior Member
Joined: 2010 March 16
Location: South Africa
Posts: 40

I cannot conceive that in the day and age that we live in, there could be any students or practitioners of psychology who do not embrace holism of the individual as a point of departure.  If a person should be subdivided into non-relating loose particles, it would make complete sense to me that, in studying or practicing psychology, the parts of the individual not entertained(ignored) might split off and cause trouble.  Robin, should you wish to explore psychology a little more, I would like to suggest you read a bit on Gestalt Therapy-"loose your mind and come to your senses"!You might also want to look into reading a bit of Positive Psychology-Ebersohn and Eloff has a lovely book pertaining to positive psychology.And keep on writing,I hope in the process of speaking your mind there might be someone with one or two answers.When one speaks about integrated psychology, we also understand that not just the mind is involved. but also the body, the spirit and everything else making up who an individual is.I have never been able to doubt the benefit of psychology, having practiced in the field for 19 years.  In that time I have been disappointed in colleagues and learning institutions, but never ever doubted that psychology, if practiced skilfully can have an enormously positive effect on the recipient, provided the individual takes responsibility for his/her own life.

 
View erikahitge's Profile Search for other posts by erikahitge Back to Top
 
karendoyle
Posted: 2010 August 18 at 10:31am | IP Logged Quote karendoyle
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2009 July 17
Location: South Africa
Posts: 19

 

I think you expressed your experience very succiently Robin - and I can relate to what you have posted quite strongly - since I have not practiced therapeutically for over a year.  It is quite a strange paradox - and perhaps one needs to get to this point, exit... and potentionlly re-enter the field again with this new insight (of heart being included).  I also wonder about levels of burn-out as a therapist... and the role this can play in becoming disconnected as a therapist oneself.



Edited by karendoyle on 2010 August 18 at 3:31pm
 
View karendoyle's Profile Search for other posts by karendoyle Back to Top
 
David L Wilson
Posted: 2011 July 31 at 2:14am | IP Logged Quote David L Wilson
Avatar
Senior Member
Senior Member


Group: Senior Member
Joined: 2008 January 09
Location: South Africa
Posts: 44
A fascinating and important post. As therapists, we need to be constantly vigilant as to the dangers inherent in our profession-of allowing another to project sometimes toxic feelings into our minds and bodies (I intentionally omit the word soul as I believe that it is ontologically and conceptually separate from mind. However, depending on our beliefs and practices-many have "lost awareness of being ultimately spiritual or soul beings, lost through identification with body/mind and the objects of sense perception)- We need to be aware of the dangers we bring to our patients.

However, just as an aware we need be of dangers from exposure to our patients, we need equal awareness of the dangers we may present to our patients.

Hopefully ongoing supervision and ruthless self scritiny are some means of prorecting ourselves and patients. As a psychologist who has over time had privileged access to inner circles of psychoanalytic psychologists, who I would have expected had given special attention to the importance of their own personality problems and even pathologies, I experienced enormous disillusionment hearing the uncensored views and practices of many colleagues. Certainly many I would not bare my soul to! On the other hand, I suppose as with all aspects of life, I also encountered a few who reddemmed my faith by the evidence of their profound dedication to an ongoing quest for truth and professional integrity.

At a fundamental level, I have come to believe that as with any profound intimate relationship, the results of therapy depend not so much on what the patners do, or what school of therapy the therapist belongs to, but rather on WHO they are. Patients inevitably pick up not on what we say, but what we secretly do, or are). A patient cannot, I assume, go further than their analyst has, in dealing with certain life conflicts. At leasr being aware of our limits is an important start.

A last caveat, the dangers involved in the therapists apparently benign motive to cure, has, I believe, been exposed for the often underlying un- analysed needs of the therapist -to be needed, for power, to defend him or herself against underlying sadism. See David Hinshelwood. A Mind of One's Own for a lucid discussion of the need to cure. He posits what I take to be Bion's thesis, that cure follows in the wake of the mutual search for truth.

Regards David

__________________
Norwood, Psychoanalytic Clinical Psychologist, 072 122 7217   18yrs exp.
 
View David L Wilson's Profile Search for other posts by David L Wilson Back to Top
 
karendoyle
Posted: 2011 August 01 at 3:11pm | IP Logged Quote karendoyle
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2009 July 17
Location: South Africa
Posts: 19

Nice reflection David - thank you for assising in fasciliating my personal scrutiny  .

I guess psychology can become as dysfuntional as we allow it to become...



Edited by karendoyle on 2011 August 01 at 3:43pm
 
View karendoyle's Profile Search for other posts by karendoyle Back to Top
 
Lunar
Posted: 2011 August 01 at 7:41pm | IP Logged Quote Lunar
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2008 July 22
Location: South Africa
Posts: 15

Hi there

I actually logged on this evening after a long absence to ask a question which maybe relates to this discussion.  I don't have all the correct jargon etc, so I hope I'm able to get my question out appropriately.

I too am studying psychology and have also been a client and I'm concerned that I'm becoming a bit disillusioned at this point as to whether my initial wish to 'help' others may be more damaging in the long run.

Some time ago I studied some of Eckhart Tolle's teachings about being Present and not identifying with the 'mind', as that is where all of our unhappiness lies, where our (usually fictituous) 'story of me' is stored - based on past experience etc etc.  I found that his words truly struck a chord and in actual fact, by attempting to practice a lot of what he 'preaches', I found my long-standing, 'multi-drug resistant' depression began to lift!

I now wonder if there is such a thing as 'too much therapy'?  I have no doubt there are a multitude of benefits in seeking assistance from an unbaised, knowledgeable third-party, but I'm starting to doubt the wisdom of long-term therapy.  It just feels as though the more one 'explores' ones psyche, the more you get stuck in the 'mind' which ultimately (for me at least) only created more frustration and more questions because I (we) cannot possibly ever truly understand our 'selves' because, as Robin mentioned, I believe our 'selves' is ultimately our 'souls'.

I'm wondering if the collective need to 'fix' every problem has gone too far.  Is it possible that certain life events should just be experienced and not necessarily dissected in order to be understood?  Maybe it was just my own experience in therapy - but I wonder if my 'depression' would have lasted so long if I hadn't just 'gotten on' with life instead of delving into the past trauma and painful childhood???  I would love to hear your thoughts on this.  Also, please know, I have the utmost gratitude and respect for my therapists - I do believe I've learned a great deal from them, despite my confusion mentioned above ;)

So, I'm not sure if that makes sense to anyone or not - just something I was hoping to hear another's opinion of...

Tnx!!

 
View Lunar's Profile Search for other posts by Lunar Back to Top
 
Robin
Posted: 2011 August 01 at 8:24pm | IP Logged Quote Robin
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 March 09
Posts: 8
It sounds, Lunar, like therapy has been helpful and that you are now perhaps moving on from it. You don't sound confused, rather just tentative in your well articulated experience.
 
View Robin's Profile Search for other posts by Robin Visit Robin's Homepage Back to Top
 
erikahitge
Posted: 2011 August 03 at 9:35pm | IP Logged Quote erikahitge

Senior Member
Senior Member


Group: Senior Member
Joined: 2010 March 16
Location: South Africa
Posts: 40

hi there!  i hear here about a process that has unfolded with many parts contained in it.  i would want to believe that in isolation, none of the parts may have been beneficial, but the process may have been.  in my practice i have stopped thinking of clients as symptoms a very long time ago and believe that in the therapeutic relationship, if a therapist is concerned with the client rather than the cure, powerful changes may take place.  i have long outgrown the idea that therapist have a magical persona and can cure all ills.  i have a strong belief that when a client in therapy has readiness, is willing to engage therapeutically and takes responsibility for their lives, wonderful stuff emerges.  i have no misconceptions about people who have never attended any therapy, but seem quite "sorted".

neither have i any misconceptions about myself having benefitted from therapy and clients benefitting from attending therapy.

 
View erikahitge's Profile Search for other posts by erikahitge Back to Top
 
jlamusse
Posted: 2011 August 17 at 6:43pm | IP Logged Quote jlamusse
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2011 July 29
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2

I think the above topic is very relevant and reflects a huge part of the dominant narratives of psychology and psychotherapy in South Africa today. There are a few thoughts that came to mind as I read the above and thought it may be useful to share them.

Freud said, in not so many words, a cigar can also just only be a cigar. Meaning with psychological training one can analyse some things beyond what they really are, instead of just taking things as they are. Sometimes there is more behind something, as it forms part of a greater pattern or because it greatly impairs our ability to cope. So yes, psychological principles if used without caution, or care, can lead one to feeling more "crazy" or lost.

As was said above, therapy is not about helping (my notion of what is best for you may not be correct or helpful at all), it's about a mutual collaboration to explore our difficulties and strengths, and about how a person can possibly find a way to function more effectively in their environment. Trying to establish a "perfect" level of functioning or "fixing" everything, is in itself irrational and problematic - as it denies the essential fact that we are not perfect as human beings.

Research is also starting to show that depression is not all in the "mind", it is based in thinking and biology - e.g. the brain in some areas starts degenerating in depression, and negative thinking patterns can lead to such degeneration, as can genetics/trauma. Similarly the body affects the mind - e.g. if your blood sugar levels aren't regulated your mood can be affected as a result. So ignoring the relationship between body and mind is short sighted especially when one considers that social deprivation impacts how your brain develops and learns how to respond to stress in maladaptive manners.

I'm a firm believer that therapy can help ME, and it has. Whether it helps YOU is dependant on whether you feel ok enough to bring about some growth and change, and can sit with some difficult feelings/thoughts to achieve that. It is also dependant on whether you find a fit with your therapist. Sometimes we can also be our own worst enemy and "unthink" and forget the cigar may just be a cigar.

 
View jlamusse's Profile Search for other posts by jlamusse Visit jlamusse's Homepage Back to Top
 
Robin
Posted: 2011 August 17 at 7:05pm | IP Logged Quote Robin
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2004 March 09
Posts: 8
A cigar is just a cigar when a psychologist wants to smoke it ... (All
psychosexual meanings intended).
 
View Robin's Profile Search for other posts by Robin Visit Robin's Homepage Back to Top
 
erikahitge
Posted: 2011 August 17 at 8:42pm | IP Logged Quote erikahitge

Senior Member
Senior Member


Group: Senior Member
Joined: 2010 March 16
Location: South Africa
Posts: 40

Robin, I firmly believe your perceptions are of great value to you at this moment and may be so for longer, all depending on what you choose.  Your perceptions inform your choices and are necessary to create emotional safety, therefore, I would suggest you decide what uses you can put the cigar to.

Regards

 

Erika

 

 

 
View erikahitge's Profile Search for other posts by erikahitge Back to Top
 
karendoyle
Posted: 2011 August 18 at 9:06am | IP Logged Quote karendoyle
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2009 July 17
Location: South Africa
Posts: 19
oh a good one Robin !!
 
View karendoyle's Profile Search for other posts by karendoyle Back to Top
 
David L Wilson
Posted: 2012 January 14 at 12:23am | IP Logged Quote David L Wilson
Avatar
Senior Member
Senior Member


Group: Senior Member
Joined: 2008 January 09
Location: South Africa
Posts: 44
Your point is well made.

In the early days of vpsychoanalysis creative great minds from all disciplines were encouraged to learn and join.

Nowadays, in the words of the eminent psycoanalyst, Eissler"psychoanalysis is sterile" - sterilised by bureaucratic mazes, possibly a bizarre confounding of psychology with the trappings of medicine and the burdens of acting like thought police and a secular priesthood, or examples of middle class mediocrity posing as well -adjusted role models.

When will we admit that one of the greatest sources of creativity is acknowledgement of our own alienation, pain and suffering.

Thank you for an important reminder of the importance of the Wounded healer's role.

We risk a model of ourselves and for our patients not unlike Stepford wives.

David Wilson


__________________
Norwood, Psychoanalytic Clinical Psychologist, 072 122 7217   18yrs exp.
 
View David L Wilson's Profile Search for other posts by David L Wilson Back to Top
 
Lacan
Posted: 2012 January 18 at 12:27am | IP Logged Quote Lacan
Avatar
Member
Member


Group: Member
Joined: 2010 March 22
Location: South Africa
Posts: 12

Why Psychoanalysis? - Elisabeth Roudinesco.

 
View Lacan's Profile Search for other posts by Lacan Back to Top
 
<< Prev Topic Issues relating to practice Next Topic >>

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum







Copyright © 2001-2004 Psychotherapy.co.za. All rights reserved.

This site is best viewed at 1024x768 screen resolution.
Back to Top