“We now live in a nation…”

A FB friend posted this:

chris_hedges

Here’s my commentary:

There is truth in this, but also dishonesty.  All these institutions both support and undermine the values and qualities of life which they are instituted to support and cultivate.  Repairing and redirecting existing institutions is much harder to get to grips with than overturning them.  Getting them to work like they are supposed to is a huge challenge.  They are all parts of a society in which dishonesty plays too large a part.  Getting the various parts of our culture to work as they should calls for an increase in honesty that the culture may not be prepared to acknowledge or undertake.  Posters like this one do very little to move us in the necessary direction, and might actually move us backward while claiming to move us forward, or to want to.

For example, the claim–“We now live in a nation…”–suggests that there was a former time and place in which institutions did not undermine, to greater or lesser extents, their purposes.  But if there is such a time and place in the U.S.A., or even anywhere in the world at any time in human history, I haven’t read or heard about it.

Yes, our institutions–which means the people who make them up and how they do their work–are often insipid, stupid, self-serving, blinkered and even corrupt in various ways (there’s more than one way to be corrupt).  And its hard to really look at that: disillusionment is painful.  Part of that pain comes from realizing that our original impression of how things were was itself not true.  Psychotherapy and genuine social improvement both share the need for a top-down reorganization of how life is perceived.  Because how we change who we are, and open up new possibilities of how we can be, can involve changing our perception of who we were.  The psychoanalyst Arnold Modell uses the term “retranscription” to refer to this process.

But it’s easier to feel that things were perfect and then ruined, usually by others whom we can resent.  There is a spiritual piece to this.  In spiritual traditions, the human condition is described as having “fallen from grace,” “lost contact with our origins,” etc.  And it does map onto the situation of institutions which have lost contact with their origins; so, for example, we get law instead of justice, medicine instead of health care, wild bank speculation instead of stewardship of funds underpinning the economy, etc.  Nor is my own field of psychology, which tends to produce successive fads that dominate its versions of human nature and how science and treatment should be done, instead of understanding in depth, immune from this kind of process.

In fact, many of the most effective emotion-arousing appeals in politics and religion claim that we have lost a perfect state of being which we formerly had and need to mobilize ourselves and prepare to sacrifice to regain.  Hitler, no less, was well aware of this, and used it quite deliberately.  He was able to invoke the loss of German-speaking lands in the remapping of Germany after W.W.I as a geographic example of a nation having lost its original integrity and needing to restore it by taking its destiny into its hands.  The fact that the “original” Germany he recalled was itself a relatively recent creation somehow didn’t make it into the story.

Of course, the self-promotion of the individual who highlights the deficiencies of social systems is always worth considering.  Students at Goddard College, where I later went to school, said to Stokley Charmichael, when he gave his fiery presentation against racism in America during the 1960s, “What’s in it for you?”  (If you don’t know who Stokely Charmichael was, look it up.  Though having to write this does make me feel old!)  His answer, as it was reported to me, was to the effect that this was a different kind of place than he was used to speaking at.

 

 

 

 

The Googlers: Religion of the Future

This story was originally published in the online webzine “Covalence,” Dec. 2012-Jan. 2013, and is available on the Covalence Archive at http://luthscitech.org/the-googlers-religion-of-the-future/.  It is modeled on the story of “The Islanders,” chapter 1 in “The Sufis,” by Idries Shah..

Once upon a time there was a civilization where everyone used computers and the internet to manage everything that made society function and life efficient, comfortable, and secure.  With computers and the internet, they controlled the generation of electricity and the management of traffic, delved within the body and reached into outer space, created entertainment in music and cinema and transmitted it around the world instantly.  With computers and the internet, they managed unprecedentedly huge and complex international commercial and financial networks, and even the military defense of nations.  Virtually all their communications, all the management and coordination of all their systems, their entire industrial, educational, economic, military, health care and governmental infrastructures, were computerized.  The citizens of that civilization lived in a world in which everyone was connected to everyone else, by computers through the internet.  And it all worked very well indeed.

The internet was invisible but it was everywhere.  Connected with the internet, people could find out the answer to almost any question they wanted to ask.  Whole libraries, encyclopedias, dictionaries, storehouses of magazines and journals, all manner of information and research, information which people had dedicated their entire lifetimes to discovering just an infinitesimal portion of, were just a few clicks away from almost anyone, almost anywhere, who was at a computer.  The method of searching the internet through a computer was called “Googling,” and everyone in those ancient days did it.

Today we look back upon it as a golden age.

The end of the golden age evolved, gradually and invisibly, so that no one noticed until it burst upon them.  Nations practiced invisible “cyberwar,” placing powerful but dormant “logic bombs” within one another’s master computer control grids, which, if activated, were capable of disrupting virtually every aspect of every country.  Unlike conventional war, however, cyberwar attack could not be seen coming.  Indeed, cyberwar attacks could not even be identified as coming from a particular place.  They would happen instantly, without any advance notice, wrecking computer networks and wreaking devastation and havoc within minutes.  Every advanced nation had its cyberwarriors and cyberwar strategy, and each one placed logic bombs within the grids of the others, in order to counterattack if the day came when it might be the target of a cyberattack.  One day a cyberattack started–no one knows from where, it could have been a cyberwarrior in North Korea or a kid in Kalamazoo or Novosibirsk–targeting the military, government and industrial systems in the all the mightiest nations simultaneously.  That instantly triggered their own cyberwar counterattacks, and within minutes every nation on the grid was attacking the computers of every other one.  Within a very short time, virtually all the systems responsible for managing and maintaining communications, transportation, power generation and distribution, all the technological structures of civilization, were burned to a crisp.  Electricity stopped flowing, and computers, the internet, all of civilization as it had been known, ended, in what has come to be known as the Great Disintegration.

And there was no more Googling.

Society had indeed disintegrated, but the computers were still there.  Many of the older generation, unable to stand the disruption, not knowing how to even manage their lives without electricity and computers, became hopelessly depressed, or else completely delusional.  Many just lay down and died.  Paranoia ruled for a time, naturally. Often, those who knew how to make and operating computers were blamed for the Disintegration, and driven out or killed.  Many computers were destroyed.  A period of lawlessness followed, because the social framework for enforcing laws had been destroyed along with everything else, and because, without advanced methods of production and distribution, available stocks of foods and other necessities fell below what was required by the vast populations of people who could not produce or find them.  Eventually the Paranoia receded to the usual fringes of society, the fundamentals of law and order were reestablished, and the diminished numbers of human beings who were still left alive regrouped in their various nations.

When the Disintegration was over and the Paranoia done, there were still many computers left, some of which had been rescued and hidden during the upheavals.
When it was safe to bring them out once more, people looked at them with curiosity and wonder, and wondered what they were and how they could be operated.  Some people could dimly remember seeing, as children, adults connecting to the larger universe of information and knowledge through Googling.  They naturally wanted to achieve the same abilities, the same access to knowledge.  So they sat at computers, worked the keys, and tried to cast themselves into the appropriate state, which they called Googling.  Some of the new Googlers found that it helped them to get into the proper state to recite the Google mantra:  “Don’t be evil.”

Many Googlers discovered that they could, in fact, cast themselves into a Google trance, while sitting at computers.  Once in trance, they would allow questions to arise within their minds, and become the focus of the trance.  Many found that, after they regained normal awareness, that they had returned from their sojourn in the Google Dimension with answers to questions that had been troubling them.  The news spread from those who had experienced it, or knew someone who had, to their friends and neighbors, and gradually more and more people became Googlers.  Googling was seen as both a modern way of life and as a way to connect with of the ancient pre-Disintegration heritage which had been lost.

Googling began to take different social forms, as Googlers practiced Googling both individually and in congregational worship.  Some Googlers found that they became more resilient to life’s stresses and strains through regular Googling, while some became odder (sometimes they were the same ones).  Some Googlers became insane, but their colleagues thought that they would have anyway, so it wasn’t due to Googling.  Through regular worship and other congregational activities, Googlers met one another and formed social, business and romantic relationships, which helped stabilize and strengthen communities. Some Googlers came to see themselves as a special elite, while others felt, not that they themselves were special, but that they were on a special path of life, which brought them into connection with higher knowledge.

Eventually, Googling became the religion of the future.

Inevitably, the Googlers divided into sects.  One sect practiced by silently thinking the sacred mantra–”Don’t Be Evil”–while sitting in front of their computers and casting themselves into the Google-spell.  Another practiced chanting it aloud while seated at their computers, while another group chanted “don’t be evil” while walking in circles around their computers, and yet another practiced silent keyboarding of the sacred phrase.  Often their differences led to misunderstanding and mutual suspicion and distrust, even contempt.  Trying to remedy this situation, another sect, the so-called “United Googlers,” arose.  They held that any form of Googling was equally acceptable, and were even willing for the faithful to think, chant and keyboard simultaneously!

Dedicated Googler leaders arose, and formed Institutes of Googling to teach the history of the movement and the finer points of practice and belief, which was called “Googleology.”  Congregations formed around charismatic Googler teachers whose expositions on Googleology climaxed with a cathartic demonstration as the teacher, or an especially favored member of the congregation, “Googled” into trance by a computer (some of which were decorated with valuable jewels and precious metals), while the congregation urged them on, chanting, “Don’t be evil!  Don’t be evil!  Don’t be evil!”  Sometimes people were even known to begin spontaneously “writing in Code,” the mysterious language of the ancient computer programmers.

A googlelogical schism developed between the conservatives, who interpreted “Don’t be evil” as a strict moral injunction, and the liberals, who interpreted it as meaning that evil didn’t really exist, only mistakes in judgment.   Sometimes scholars from one Googleogical seminary were welcomed at another, in a spirit of ecumenicism; sometimes not.

Here and there, the tradition of what computers and the internet had really been still survived.  Some of the older people who had really known and used electricity, computers, and the internet, remonstrated with the Googlers and tried to tell them about what the life with computers, electricity and the internet had really been, but to no avail.  Unable to demonstrate, they couldn’t make themselves understood; they sounded as if they were talking nonsense.  Most were ignored, some driven away, many became insane.  Most decided to stop wasting their energy and alienating their neighbors and just acted like everyone else; which some called “drinking the Kool-Aid,” apparently after an ancient beverage whose recipe is now lost. Eventually, the old-timers all died off, leaving the Googlers to practice their religion without disturbance.

Now, the “ancient knowledge” hadn’t entirely been lost. Here and there pockets of people existed who generated electricity with solar panels that still survived and worked, and some engineering knowledge had been preserved.  Secret enclaves of people existed who actually used computers, and an internet had actually been reestablished, although of course on a much smaller scale.  But these survivors and their descendants had learned, often through painful experience, to operate with great caution and secrecy.

All the real computer users knew the story of the young man from their community who had walked by a bunch of Googlers while traveling between his community and another.  They were gathered around a computer where a Googler prayer-leader was leading the “Sacred Google Worship Ceremony.”  When the newcomer told the worshippers that they were merely imitating a behavior that had an actual use, they accused him of being a troublemaker, or insane.  When he offered to prove it by demonstration, they grabbed him, sat him down in front of their dead computer, and insisted that he prove it then and there.  When, of course, he couldn’t, they stoned him to death, shouting, “Don’t be evil.”

Of course, many people became disillusioned with Googling, which they criticized, accurately enough, as being illogical. Naturally, they became known as “the Rejectors.”  One of their greatest leaders said, “The answers to the questions of life come through the application of observation and reason, and we can’t observe anything in Googling that makes any reasonable sense at all!”  At first, the Googlers oppressed the Rejectors.  Many were ostracized from society, broken in spirit by bullying, even killed; and many had to learn to keep their Rejectionist attitude to themselves, or share it only with a close friend or two.  However, as more and more people became Rejectors–there was practically one in every family–most Googler communities eventually became more tolerant.  The Googlers, after all, were supported by their belief, and even had evidence from social scientists who had found that Googlers tended to be less depressed and more resilient in the face of reversals of fortune; especially when they practiced private Googling daily, and attended congregational Googling weekly.  Sometimes Googlers and Rejectors even became friends, which seemed more enlightened to almost everyone.

Here and there, people who grew up among the Googlers came to doubt the validity of their community’s beliefs, but instead of becoming Rejectors, they wondered whether the ancient Googlers had been doing something different from their modern namesakes.  Once in awhile, they were able to find a real internet user, because the real internet people had set up various front organizations to help balance society, keeping it from getting even more delusional than it already was.  Through such organizations, which could be business, educational or artistic groups, or any superficially plausible kind of entity, they could live among the Googlers and identify potential candidates for admission into the ranks of those who really knew what Googling was.  They helped maintain the fabric of society, by nudging things in the right direction and preventing the more insane Googlers and their ideas from acquiring too much influence.  They were always looking for people who might have the right combination of curiosity and common sense to learn what Googling was really about.

Once the real computer users contacted an aspiring one, a period of training followed.  The real internet users had learned that Googlers had to be brought to the truth through a series of steps, in order not to destabilize them.  First they had to learn about electricity.  Even that had to be done in a series of steps; first showing them how it was generated, then feeling a small shock, then watching it work, for example, by powering lights.  Next they were shown actual working computers, though not yet online, and taught how to use them.  Finally, the trainees were ready to learn to go online and connect with the internet.  This training often lasted several years, because, in addition to learning the facts of electricity, computing, and the internet, the students had to adjust their attitude and reform their character.  In order not to misuse their knowledge, through greed, at the expense of others, they had to become patient, humble, and dedicated to the genuine long-term good of all.  They had to learn to protect their new knowledge, as well as acquiring the knowledge itself.  They had to be carefully watched during their training period lest they misuse the new information and skills, for example, by using their knowledge to put others down or take economic, emotional or sexual advantage of them.  Such students were often heard to say, “why do I have to learn about electricity and computers, when all I want to do is Google?”

Aspirants were sometimes found to be unsuitable for future instruction.  One student, who had learned about electricity but not computers before he was dismissed, stole some solar panels and set himself up as a Googler teacher.  He connected wires from the panels to his own students when they were seated at computers, and the weak electric current that they felt when Googling was interpreted as proof of the success of their efforts.

But many students did stay the course, and they became the new real internet users.  They received all the benefits of the world wide web, which informed them about the condition of humanity, and provided a platform on which they could support the evolution of human society.  They carry on, even today, knowing that they are contributing to a future in which, someday, when humanity is ready, the benefits of electricity, computers and the internet will be available to everyone, everywhere, once again.

 

 

Response to Yeats

A Facebook friend posted this poem by William Butler Yeats:

“Wine comes in at the mouth
And love comes in at the eye;
That’s all we shall know for truth
Before we grow old and die.
I lift the glass to my mouth,
I look at you and I sigh.”

Prompting my reply:

But Yeats, entranced by words and such
Forgot to mention holy touch
And wrapped up in what he can do
Forgot your reach belongs to you

“The Essential Other:” Robert Galatzer-Levy’s Keynote Address at the Conference Honoring Bertram Cohler

On Saturday, September 21, Dr. Robert Galatzer-Levy gave the keynote address at a conference entitled “The Essential Other: Generativity, Resilience, and Narrative, A Conference Honoring the Life and Work of Bertram Cohler, Ph.D.” The name is a mouthful, but the conference delivered plenty of nutrition–cheers to conference organizer (and panel presenter) Dr. Christine Kieffer and host (and panel presenter), at Francis Parker School, Dr. Daniel Frank.

Dr. Galatzer-Levy, a psychoanalyst and teacher, had been a long-time colleague and friend of Bert Cohler’s, who died in May of 2012. They had written a book together, entitled “The Essential Other,” published in 1994, thus the title of the conference. Dr. Galatzer-Levy gave the keynote address.

“Why,” he asked, “are people important to each other?” Aristotle’s answer, because man is a political and social animal, is circular. Freud’s “beautiful theory” is that people have drives which can only be satisfied by others; for example, the infant’s need for food and the more mature person’s need for sex. Renee Spitz found that the infant’s needs go beyond merely being taken care of physically. Heinz Kohut noticed that people have an experience of living that is disorganized, so people need “selfobjects” (difficult word) who provide functions like the mother who soothes and calms the child. This experience with the mother, and/or with other selfobjects, including the therapist, is the precursor to the child’s later experience to organize itself. Self = the experience of being in the world. Objects = other people, the focus of drives.

In the late 1980s, Galatzer-Levy and Cohler were very recent grads of the Psychoanalytic Institute and students of Kohut. The then current psychoanalytic concepts didn’t capture the aliveness of being in the world, in relationships with other people and institutions. For Freud, development ends with adolescence, more or less, with the ego and superego in place. Galatzer-Levy and Cohler weren’t satisfied with that and wanted to develop a theory that development continued across the life course. “We were driven by the wish not to be dead at 50.” Their collaboration on “The Essential Other” was easy and productive.

Other people are best conceptualized not as abstractions but as concrete expressions of bodily alive relatedness with someone doing something. The experience of other people combines these things. Cohler and Galatzer-Levy “didn’t have an abstract relationship, we wrote together, did things together.” The idea of the essential other combines the vigorous activeness of actual people with the need for others to meet our needs.

Galatzer-Levy criticized the idea that development means that one moves from dependence to independence. There is, instead, “a shift from a very narrow focus of dependence to an ever wider spectrum of essential life and functioning.” Llinear developmental sequences fit neatly on charts–oral, anal, etc.–but life is not a sequential unfolding, and pathology is not a deviation from that sequence. “Life is continuing transformation across the life course. The only thing abnormal is stasis.”

Theresa Benedict noticed that development is a mutual experience in which there is a change in the caretaker by virtue of the process of caretaking, a mutuality. Cohler would say, to freshman at the University of Chicago, when he was teaching Freud’s “Interpretation of Dreams,” “We are all equal before the text.” The benefits of teaching, of caretaking, go in both directions. Memories can serve “essential other” functions, entities can be present in a way despite the fact that they are not physically present, even no longer here, as is the case for Galatzer-Levy with his friend and collaborated, Bert Cohler.

Galatzer-Levy emphasized the importance of friendship, “about which psychoanalytic theory has little to say.” Kids who are happy have friends who matter a great deal to them. Most people, asked who the most important people in their lives are, will include their friends. Galatzer-Levy recommended Huckleberry Finn as a study in friendship, in which Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were essential others to each other, as their dialog moves both boys forward.

In addition to “essential other” relationships between people, there is the relationship of the individual with institutions. Cohler’s relationships with the University of Chicago “played a central role in his psychological life,” beginning as a patient/student at the Orthogenic School. “The University of Chicago’s values were his own,” including “close reading of text,” and within the University framework Cohler taught classes of freshman “year after year.”

Noting that “The Essential Other” is 20 (or so) years old now, Galatzer-Levy considered what changes he and Cohler might make were they to do a revised edition today. “The work of developing coherent narratives is a lot of the process of psychoanalytic work (and) the editing of narratives is a large part of psychoanalytic work.” Another difference: “We described a 1:1 relationship between individuals, and between individuals and institutions.” But today’s models for analyzing networks provide a richer way to see the individual’s role within a network.

Galatzer-Levy noted that fractals provide another way of looking at people. “Fractal structure separates the inside from the outside in a complicated way, you can’t specify what’s inside and what’s outside. The fractal vision of boundaries doesn’t fit with the issues of one person interacting with another as analysts usually think of it. The boundaries (between inside and outside) are much richer.”

I very much appreciated and enjoyed the clarity of Dr. Galatzer-Levy’s overview of a stream of psychoanalytic thought beginning with Freud and going through Kohut, with significant contributions from others. His jump from Aristotle to Freud did overlook a few significant developments in understanding human nature between the one and the other, but, as Doris Lessing pointed out, this is typical of the Western academic tradition. I was delighted to hear Galatzer-Levy consider the implications of fractals for understanding, or at least modeling, metaphors of human behavior, since I’m interested in the question of whether fractal math can complement the math of probabilities and the normal curve upon which all of psychometrics (the math underlying psychological testing), and most if not all of science, is currently based. I was especially impressed with the concept of “the essential other” in our understanding of human nature and development through relationship. Certainly therapists become “essential others” for clients or patients, when the therapy is working. The concept of “the essential other” is also powerful in relationships between individuals and persons no longer physically present, and with institutions.

Branding Therapists

This article is reprinted from the winter, 2013, Illinois Psychologist, the newsletter of the Illinois Psychological Association.

A recent article in the New York Times Magazine focused on “branding” as the solution for underfilled therapy practices.  Posted online as “What Brand Is Your Therapist?” therapist Lori Gottlieb described her problem establishing her practice after completing her training, and the role of “branding consultants” in advising therapists on how gain traction in the marketplace (12-24-12 edition).   The article produced online reactions both at the Times website and also on the IPA listserve (where I’m always glad to see substantial dialog!).

I suppose that “branding,” understood in this case as putting a superficial tag on something much more complex in order to make it recognizable in a marketplace that devalues complexity, is a very old problem.

The Sufi teacher Idries Shah tells a modern version of an old story about a spiritual teacher who teaches mainly through stories, the meaning of which unfold over time, partly through the effort of each student and of the group of students as a whole, partly through receptive absorption, and partly through interaction with the teacher through conversations and experiences.  One particularly superficial student was unable to learn.  He tried to torture a meaning from the stories, and when he couldn’t he tried to trick the teacher into giving the key to unlock them; as if there was one.  Finally the teacher sent the hopeless student away.  Several years later, the former student returned to visit.  He had become successful in the world, arriving in a lavish new car, upholstered in priceless carpets, with a uniformed driver, wearing a bespoke suit and gold jewelry.  “I am glad to see that you’ve become successful in the world,” said the teacher.  “And have you given up trying to torture a meaning from the stories?”  “Oh yes,” said the student, “I teach them now.”

So the student was better at branding himself than the teacher was, although branding may not have been the teacher’s priority.

Psychologically, it makes sense to look at branding from a neurocognitive perspective. Our brains operate perceptually as pattern-matching stimulus recognizers and information organizers.  This both makes us very efficient at recognizing things once we’ve learned to, and also gives rise to the problems of stereotyping and prejudice, cognitive-affective functions that underlie much of brand-perception.

The Times article focuses on therapists branding themselves in order to be perceptible to potential clients, as if the problem is entirely on the consumer side.  But the culture of professional mental health itself is by no means immune from branding.  The DSM, with its division of mental illnesses into categories which are often artificially distinct–you can have an affective disorder or a personality disorder–acts as a kind of compendium of “brands” of mental illness.  The diagnostic job is done when the label is conferred, even if little or nothing is understood about the client’s personality, cognitive style, history, social network, or existence within the larger culture.

Psychotherapy, too, is permeated by “brand” thinking.  “What kind of therapist are you?”  “I’m CBT.”  “I’m psychodynamic.”  etc.  Yet we know that relational, interpersonal, dynamic, and cognitive factors are present in virtually all therapeutic work, and that the personality, personal history and personal style of the  therapist make a huge contribution to how each therapist actually goes about doing therapy.

So, to be human is to be susceptible to “brand” thinking.  And if America has evolved a particularly brand-conscious culture, that is the culture in which therapists who work here have to succeed, while maintaining our integrity and without letting the more complex and nuanced perception of the nature and treatment of psychological problems, which good psychotherapy depends on, be lost in the process.

“Read the Consitution”

Screen shot 2013-01-10 at 10.22.21 PM

A Facebook buddy shared this photo of anti-Obama rally participants showing a sign:  “Obama, Read the Consitution.”  Of course, they think it means what they think it does, even if they can’t spell it.

The Constitution has been interpreted in various ways ever since it was written.  During the Civil War, both sides fought to defend the Constitution.  The doctrine of “original intent,” meaning that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of how the framers would have understood the issue at hand, is in vogue.  I am told that the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court favors the doctrine of “original intent,” including the Justice who would likely have been a slave had he been alive when the Constitution was written.

Ulysses S. Grant made this striking observation about the Constitution in his “Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant and Selected Letters 1839-1865:”  I haven’t seen a better comment:

“The framers (of the constitution) were wise in their generation and wanted to do the very best possible to secure their own liberty and independence, and that also of their descendants to the latest days.  It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies.  At the time of the framing of our constitution the only physical forces that had been subdued and made to serve man and do his labor, were the currents in the streams and in the air we breathe.  Rude machines, propelled by water power, had been invented; sails to propel ships upon the waters had been set to catch the passing breeze–but the application of steam to propel vessels against both wind and current, and machinery to do all manner of work had not been thought of.  The instantaneous transmission of messages around the world by means of electricity would probably at that day have been attributed to witchcraft or a league with the Devil.  Immaterial circumstances had changed as greatly as material ones.  We could not and ought not to be rigidly bound by the rules laid down under circumstances so different for emergencies so utterly unanticipated.” p. 147

 

Client’s Observation

Sometimes a client makes an observation in a therapy session that is so profound and eloquent that I am moved to write it down and, with permission, share it.  Here is such a comment:

“It really can’t be overstated, how much we carry from childhood, of being hurt, abandoned.  And the resulting kind of adaptations, adjustments we make to survive, when we’re so broken.  It just feels so old, it never ceases to surprise me how present that feeling of old pain is, or old loss, or old sadness.  I feel better today, but still I feel the loss as a child.  I suppose we never really completely lose that, do we, that sense, except through embracing the child, of course, and caring for it, respecting it, offering consideration and space and voice to that child, like any normal child…In some ways those original patterns remain, and we simply build new patterns around them or through them.  Which is kind of a cool thought, because as we evolve through, we can refer to those old patterns as we help others.  What a nice gift…It is a wonderful experience, reencountering the gift of transcendence.  It’s very cool.”