You know, I still meet people that believe that experiencing hypnosis is like being unconscious. I always reply, What would be the point of that? Spending money and time to be unconscious in someone elses company?? If I wanted you to be unconscious we would simply bash you over the head! So it is important that you also know that hypnosis is not about being unconscious and that you have the correct expectations about the hypnotic experience that you are going to have, should you choose to invest in one of our products or experience hypnosis for yourself with a hypnotist.

In order to understand hypnosis, it is important to understand and differentiate between our minds. By that I am referring to our conscious mind, where we are now and just below that level of awareness is our unconscious mind (also known as the subconscious mind, for the purpose of easy understanding they are the same thing).

The conscious mind is where we usually spend most of our waking time, you know that internal dialogue we have that thinks hmmm, what shoes shall I wear today that is your conscious mind. Your conscious mind basically does four things;

Firstly, your conscious mind analyses. What is that? Well that is the part of us that looks at problems, analyses them and tries to create solutions to those problems. It is that part of us that makes decisions all day every day shall I open the door?, Shall I have something to eat, even though they are automatic behaviours, we make a conscious decision about whether or not to do these things.

The second part of our conscious mind is our rationale, the part of us that, especially in western cultures, always has to know Why things happen and Why we behave in particular ways. This can cause us so many problems as we give any problems more and more credence and power. More conventional and traditional methods of counselling or psychotherapy are often very much concerned with looking at causes of our problems and it is my opinion that all this does is teaches us why they happen as opposed to giving us the skills required to changing unwanted habits and behaviours. The more we think about why we do things the more we seem to embed the unwanted behaviour into our psyches!

The third part of our conscious mind is will power, that teeth-gritted determination that so many of us are proud to demonstrate. How many times have we used our will power alone to make changes and found that our will power weakens and that change is temporary or non-existent.

The final part of our conscious mind is your short-term memory. By that I am referring to the things that you need to remember to function on a day-to-day basis, so that when your phone rings you know to answer it rather than stare at it wondering it is, or ensuring that you cross the road without being run over.

That is the conscious part of your mind, it is logical, rational and analytical, a bit like Mr Spock from the Start Trek series and as much as it pains me to say it, our conscious mind is frequently wrong about things.

Your conscious mind is wherever you happen to be pointing it at any given time. I am sure you have been in a busy, noisy environment, such as a restaurant or a bar and have been engaged in a conversation with another individual, and all the sounds going on around you just seem to blend into the background. Then someone else ten metres away can punctuate their sentence with your name and you pick it out as if it was being spoken to you. This illustrates that unconsciously, you are aware of many, many pieces of information every second of your life, sounds, colours, thoughts etc, yet your conscious mind allows you to focus upon what is pertinent or relevant to you at that moment.

If you take that conscious awareness and point it inside of yourself instead of outside into the world, you begin to become aware of your inner self, your unconscious self, which is the part of you that we work with in hypnosis.

Your unconscious mind is tremendously powerful and automates as much behaviour as it possibly can so that we do not have to think about it. For example, there was a time in your life when you had to be shown how to tie your shoelaces, and you concentrated on doing this. I suspect that by this stage in your life you know how tie your shoelaces very well and you dont even think about doing it, you just do it. I have a lonely Auntie who as a boy, my mother would ask me to phone on a weekly basis as she thought this would make her happy and I vividly remember hearing her lighting up a cigarette and heavily exhaling the smoke while on the phone, she didnt even think about what she was doing, she just associated smoking with being on the phone.

We are amazing learning machines and we learn behaviours and habits and then our unconscious mind automates them and does them on auto pilot so that we do not have to think about doing them.

Your unconscious mind has within it all your long-term memory. Just about every blade of grass that you have seen in your entire lifetime is stored away in your long-term memory that serves as an amazing storage centre. These memories affect us in varying ways, some more than others. Sometimes our ability to remember them is not as fluid as we need, as it is often not necessary to have all our memory in the forefront of our minds. For example, right now you are unlikely to be thinking about everything that happened to you on your last birthday, however, me just mentioning it, you can dig into your unconscious, long-term memory and remember.

Another example is if you have ever seen a live stand up comedy show. You watch the comedian and laugh (or not as the case may be!) heartily as you listen to lots and lots of jokes. Then when you leave the venue, you can remember none of them, or one or two at best! Then, a week later, a friend that you were with can say to you do you remember such and such a joke from last weeks comedian and you think oh yeeeaaah! as you bring that information out from your long-term memory. You know that you know the joke, it was just not at the forefront of your conscious mind, it was tucked away in the deeper unconscious.

Your unconscious mind knows more about you than you consciously that you know. Sound confusing? Well, just think, you are currently breathing, your heart is beating (I do hope!) you are digesting, your body is regulating its body temperature, it is doing a range of wonderful things without you having to consciously think about it. You are not sat around thinking I really must remember to breathe. We are not machines, there is an intelligence within us that knows how to do these things, and it is that intelligence that we tap into with hypnosis.

Your unconscious mind is where you get your gut feelings, your instincts and intuition that communicates with you sporadically from time to time. Like when sometimes, someone can be saying all the right words to you, but you get a different feeling about them.

Your unconscious mind is a bit like a computer. Throughout your entire lifetime it has been programmed with all your experiences, relationships, interpretations of the world, influences and all this has culminated in your computer functioning with that programming. Hypnosis is simply a way of accessing that computer and updating that programming so that it becomes instinctive and intuitive for you to make the changes that please you.

Your unconscious mind is the seat of your emotions and where your behaviours exist and it is the part of you that we work with in hypnosis. Hypnosis is a way of us stepping over your conscious mind and accessing the unconscious mind to make powerful and profound changes.

Now, I am sure that you have experienced natural trance states many times before, in fact I know it. For example, when you have been driving in a car and thought to yourself ooh, how did I get here? or when you have been reading a book and youve turned the page and thought I have no idea what I have just read, I am going to have to read it all again. I can remember being at school watching my history teacher teach me, yet my mind was a million miles away wishing I was doing something else. All common experiences, daydream like states that we all experience, many times a day. The only difference between these naturally occurring states and those that we use in therapeutic hypnosis, is that with the hypnosis, you intend to enter the state, you are in control of it and it is just like a slightly amplified, deeper version of the state. That is it. Sometimes it is simply like sitting in a chair with your eyes closed, not the magical mystical or unusual experience that some people are led to believe it is.

It is important here to know that you cannot be made to do anything that you dont want to do. Very important. I had a guy that a doctor referred to me, came to see me and said to me my doctor told me come and see you as I have emphysema and am going to die of it unless I stop smoking. I said to him, well I presume you want to stop, he said oh, no, I love smoking, it is one of few remaining pleasures. I had to send him away as I cannot make him do something that he does not want to. Can you imagine if I could do that!! Wow. I could go and see my bank manager and make him give me million pounds without returning it! You never read about Baddy hypnotists making people rob banks or anything else absurd, because it cannot be done.

People usually then say to me ok Adam, I hear and understand what you are saying and it all makes sense. However, I have seen stage hypnosis and seen people dancing like chickens, are you telling me that they want to do that? I am saying that these people are not being made to do things that they dont want to do.

When someone buys tickets to a stage hypnosis show, they are being permissive to the notion that they are going to see hypnosis for entertainment; they expect certain things to happen. Secondly, when the stage hypnotist asks the audience who wants to come on stage the people that agree to do so or put their hands up are saying yes, I want to be hypnotised, they are not being made to do anything they dont want to do. The stage hypnotist ensures that the individuals on the show are receptive and follow a large number of compliance exercises and it begins to create the illusion that these people are doing things that they dont want to do, when they are not. The hypnosis can step over the inhibitions of the conscious mind, so that the individuals behave with more openness, they just cannot be made to do things they dont want to do.

Anyone can be hypnotised. I work with insomniacs, heroin addicts, schizophrenics, people experiencing chemotherapy, these are all people that are often convinced that they cannot relax or cannot be hypnotised, and as long as they want to, they all can and they all do.

All that is required is that you have an open mind, that you expect it to work and have progressive, motivated thoughts about the processes, follow the sessions and allow them to help you help yourself to make the changes you want and deserve.

Finally, at the beginning of the recorded hypnosis sessions and/or individual NLP or hypnosis sessions with me (I cannot speak for other therapists, we all do things differently) individually, you may be asked to do a number of different things with your mind and you can be forgiven for thinking, well, he asked me to do this, and now something else, and now another thing, what exactly am I supposed to be listening to? The simple answer is that you listen and follow as much or as little as you want to, remember that is your conscious mind thinking those thoughts and that is not the part of you that we are working with and making the change with. I am sure that there will also be times when youll be thinking hmmm am I in hypnosis, what am I supposed to be thinking or feeling. Again that is your conscious mind thinking that thought and does not matter what it is thinking. It can be attempting to follow everything that I am saying or just wandering off and thinking about whatever you like, just trust that your unconscious mind is absorbing all that you want it to.

There will be times in the sessions when you may be asked to imagine things. Imagining things does not have to mean visualising. If I ask you to think of a favourite place, you can imagine what it would be like, you dont have to be seeing a picture perfect cinema version of it in your mind. You can imagine, sense, think, or just know it without seeing it or picturing it in every detail. If I asked you to imagine the sound your feet make when you walk across gravel, you know the sound I am talking about and you can imagine it, but you are not necessarily hearing it in your ears, you can imagine it. That is all you’ll need.

So, hypnosis is not like being unconscious, it is almost like having heightened awareness, it requires you to want the change, have an open, positive mind, as best as you can, and allow whatever happens to happen, without trying to grasp at what you think should happen, just letting it happen.

I wish you all the very best with whichever hypnosis product, or with any consultative sessions you are considering having with any qualified therapist or any training you plan to attend and I just know that having come this far, you really can do it, and make the changes that you want to make with hypnosis.

What is Hypnosis? is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

Psychotherapy is the use and application of psychological knowledge to help people understand themselves and begin to make appropriate changes, or to be comfortable with who they are.

Psychotherapy has several different theoretical models that have developed over time, the most commonly known being psycho-analysis. The therapy that I practise uses some of the best ideas from these differing schools of thought in order to help people achieve not only a rapid rate of improvement but also a lasting one. It has its basis in a cognitiveanalytical model that seeks to look at the process behind thought, and understand how it has developed, and of course how to change negative thought processes into positive ones.

Hypnosis
Hypnosis is a very effective method of treatment. It is a state of altered consciousness with increased and heightened awareness, which is often accompanied by deep relaxation; this in itself can be beneficial. Contrary to popular belief it does not involve becoming unconscious and has nothing to do with sleep.

Hypnosis cannot be forced upon people, but it is a state which people allow themselves to enter.

It is important to understand that, during hypnosis, people cannot be forced to do things that they would choose not to do. Hypnosis or “trance” as it is often referred to is similar to the experience of day dreaming, when you lose a sense of time and may without thought continue a task that routinely requires concentration, such as driving from one place to another but not actually remembering the journey. This is an example of an altered state of consciousness that we experience every day of our lives.

What is Hypno-psychotherapy?
Hypno-psychotherapy is the practice of psychotherapy with applied hypnosis being the primary approach. The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, the lead body for the provision of Psychotherapy in the United Kingdom, recognises the practice of hypno-psychotherapy.

Both hypnotherapy and hypno-psychotherapy utilise hypnosis in a therapeutic form, however an individual that only practises as a hypnotherapist may not have undertaken training in psychotherapeutic theory and practice.

For therapists to be able to register with United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy requires an extensive programme of 4 years training.

Short courses of study that are readily available may give an insight into the techniques and practice of hypnosis, but they do not in themselves enable the practitioner to be able to address all forms of presenting problems.

It is strongly advised that anyone seeking any form of therapy investigates the qualifications and registrations of the practitioners they approach for treatment.

A United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy registered therapist will always provide information relating to their qualifications and registrations if requested.

What Is Hypno-psychotherapy? is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

Do you believe you have no control over your life? Are you who you are today, by choice or by fate? Will a change in your actions create a change in your life? Many people have given up on their dreams… they say, “Dreaming is only for the rich. When you have money, you can dream. When you have no money, don’t dream.”

That’s true… not everyone is lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon. If you are lacking in funds, it’s going to be difficult to start living life the way you want to. Money buys you freedom to follow your passions. But you don’t have to give up on your dreams, just because you lack money. Depending on where you are brought up, you will face limitations depending on your family finance, culture, and environment. Some of us are born to have easy lives, while some are born to take a more challenging path. Perhaps the limitations and obstacles you face today are part of your journey — you must overcome them to grow stronger on the path to achieving your goals.

When we are young, we all seem to have clear idea of what we want to be when we grow up. But somewhere along the way, these dreams get buried under the reality of daily living. The focus shifts from ‘living the dream’ to just ‘finding a good job with a stable income’. “Survival first”, as they call it. The sad part is that many people spend much of their lives doing what they don’t like, so they can finally earn enough to start doing what they do like. I say, that’s a great way to bury your happiness and turn into an economic slave. Doing what you dislike, day after day, will numb the sense of joy within you. Soon you will feel that your life has no greater purpose, and there is nothing to look forward to but work, work, work…. You will have forgotten how much fun it is to spend your time doing the things you like to do.

*~The Secret to Living Your Dreams~*

It’s painful if you don’t make enough money to live comfortably. But whats more painful is if the work you do has no meaning to you. Everyday you can drag yourself to work, perform meaningless actions, and then drag yourself back home. Apart from sleeping, work takes up the majority of our time. So if you’re not enjoying your work, you’re not enjoying your life. And life is so short, isn’t it? We probably have less than a hundred years to make our mark in this world. And you never know… you fail to look while crossing the road and BOOM! You could be gone tomorrow. So why spend your life doing something you don’t like to do? We don’t slog three-quarters of our lives just so we can enjoy one-quarter… we might not live that long. Realize that the essence of your life is happening right now — you are walking a path; making your journey through life. And if the work you do, is not designed to help you fulfill your higher purpose in life, then perhaps you are walking in the wrong direction. No point taking this path… change direction.

For your dream to stay alive, you have to act on it. It’s like a fire that grows brighter and stronger if you fan its flames and keep adding wood. If you leave the fire alone, never doing anything to keep it alive, it will burn itself out. When you fail to act on your dreams, they die.

A little girl called Leanne wants to be a ballerina. But her family is poor and unable to afford the fees of the fine arts dance school. Her father tells her not to dream because dreaming is only for the rich. But her mother says, “Lea, you can be whatever you want to be. As long as you put your heart into it, and never give up. Always hold on to your dreams because when there’s a will, there’s a way.”

Leanne remembered her mother’s words. She paid her way through a college degree in the fine arts, using money she earned from working full-time. She was talent scouted by the Royal Dance and Music Theatre of England, where she began her illustrious career as a ballerina. Earning in British pounds, she made more than enough to support her family and give them a comfortable lifestyle.

Leanne had a choice… to fervently believe in her dreams, and do whatever it takes to achieve it, or believe the World’s Greatest Lie… that at some point in her life, she lost control, and fate took over. She had to have the courage to step up to her dreams, and not give up just because she lacked money. If she listened to her father and put her love aside because dreaming was only for the rich, then she wouldn’t have lived to experience her passion. She would pass on from this world, with the music still left within her… buried under some obscure belief that she could never make money doing what she loved to do.

There is music within you, and you only need to coax it out. The daily grind forces us to forget what we love to do. Imagine you’re retired You have enough money to live comfortably, but not to splurge. How would you spend your time? What activities would you find purpose in? What would you do to amuse yourself? If you have an idea of what you would love to do but are not doing, then schedule some time everyday to do it. Making time for what you love is just like fanning the flames of your passion — the fire can only grow stronger. It’s what will bring a sense of purpose and meaning into your life; that spark of joy and wonder.

The happiest people are those who enjoy their work. They’ve managed to make money doing what they love to do, just like Leanne. And this can happen for you… if you are willing to reject the World’s Greatest Lie. Realize that you always have control over your actions, and therefore your results. The only time your start to fail in life, is when you stop believing in your ability to make a difference. You don’t need a silver spoon; you don’t need to be a genius. What you need is a sincere belief in yourself and willingness to take action towards your dreams. Believe me, you have what it takes. Just follow what British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill said in World War II: “…never give up, never give up.” And you’ll win the war.

The World’s Greatest Lie… is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

The act of recalling these memories creates expressions or feelings in our heart. These past expressions are pondered in the inner vision of our mind and our heart as though we are re-living them in the present. In so doing, we are retrieving our soul at various points of interests that have lodged a sense of importance to our individual awareness. The movement from the world around us to the world within us is a shift in attention. This shift in our attention is a conscious choice. Here, we realize that the world around us has hidden aspects to it reminding us just how privileged we are to be aware of our awareness. This realization alone gives us identification with whom we are.

You and I are conscious beings who live in a body, but this isn’t our real home. We inhabit space and time, but our real self, our authentic self, our individual awareness (soul) is a unique expression of spirit infusing our lives from an infinite number of possible correlations. We make choices every day on how our life will be lived. Each choice creates a pattern. These patterns become a statement of our character. Our character becomes a living testimony on the inner processes of our thoughts incarnating into the world we live in.

As such, the life of our soul is revealed. Every moment, we are given the opportunity to experience our soul in a variety of ways. These experiences are facets of our inner world that manifests themselves from a single expression we call spirit. The intent to focus on our past, our present, or our future desires leads us to a path. This path is a revelation of our soul seeking out an opportunity to live out our purpose. Purpose gives us meaning and hope beyond our present circumstances. It is a path into what can no longer be seen and moving our lives and our soul – into SPIRIT.

Sam Oliver, author of, “A Life in Review”

The Spirit of Soul is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

Soul can be experienced outside your body and your mind as well. Just the other day, I was riding in my car with my friend Suzanne. We drove by an old barn that was caving in upon itself.

At some point, this barn stood upright. It was strong and enclosed many vehicles and animals for years. As with people, this barn aged over time. What once was a structure capable of containing many experiences of life, now, became a broken reflection of moments filled with life suspended in time.

You and I are a structural mind/body system that holds experiences within us just like this barn. As we recall these memories, these past experiences move our awareness toward an expression of experience where stillness allows us to re-live soulful memories filled with life and vitality. These inner visions, feelings, and experiences are our soul’s way of speaking to us.

In silent reflection, our attention moves into expressions of living that are eternal. It is the part of us that is aware of our awareness. The part of us aware of our awareness and not identifying with the need to compete, become successful, or any other manifestations of the material world.

Our soul is the identification with what lies behind all appearances of separateness. This part of us needs no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no hands to touch, no tounge to taste, and no nose to smell. Our soul is completely free of any expression of our world. Our soul is the part of us that infuses all these qualities of attention.

Our soul is the silent spaces between every thought, word, and deed. It is a pregnant silence, all pervading, all knowing, and filled with eternity. Our soul is a connecting point from the world of flesh and the world of Spirit. The sacred human relationship between the form and formless states of our being create a spacial quality of existence within and beyond us whereby infinite possible correlations become the path of our soul.

* Try this exercise:

The next time you wake up in the morning, listen to your surroundings, just listen and do not analyze any sound. Let your attention be drawn into the sounds around you. Notice how far they are from you or how close. Do not try to define anything – just notice. You may hear birds, cars on the street, or the sounds of your home. Now, notice the part of you noticing all these sounds. What does this part of you sound like?

There is another sound within you. It is the part of you constantly speaking, analyzing, and judging. This part of you begins to plan your day, organize, and worry. It is the part of you that drives you out of silent witnessing all the events taking place around you. This part of you will get you out of bed in the morning.

At this point, learn to integrate the two consciously. They are going on anyway. This way ordinary events in your life will become sacred human awareness and a life filled with gratitude for every moment. Did you notice the difference between these two sounds? One moves your attention into the material world. The other moves you deeper into silence – the part of you aware of life’s inner qualities the Sound of Soul.

Sam Oliver, author of, “A Fish Named Ed”

The Sound of Soul is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

In the movie “Shattered” (1991), Dan Merrick survives an accident and develops total amnesia regarding his past. His battered face is reconstructed by plastic surgeons and, with the help of his loving wife, he gradually recovers his will to live. But he never develops a proper sense of identity. It is as though he is constantly ill at ease in his own body. As the plot unravels, Dan is led to believe that he may have murdered his wife’s lover, Jack. This thriller offers additional twists and turns but, throughout it all, we face this question:

Dan has no recollection of being Dan. Dan does not remember murdering Jack. It seems as though Dan’s very identity has been erased. Yet, Dan is in sound mind and can tell right from wrong. Should Dan be held (morally and, as a result, perhaps legally as well) accountable for Jack’s murder?

Would the answer to this question still be the same had Dan erased from his memory ONLY the crime -but recalled everything else (in an act of selective dissociation)? Do our moral and legal accountability and responsibility spring from the integrity of our memories? If Dan were to be punished for a crime he doesn’t have the faintest recollection of committing – wouldn’t he feel horribly wronged? Wouldn’t he be justified in feeling so?

There are many states of consciousness that involve dissociation and selective amnesia: hypnosis, trance and possession, hallucination, illusion, memory disorders (like organic, or functional amnesia), depersonalization disorder, dissociative fugue, dreaming, psychosis, post traumatic stress disorder, and drug-induced psychotomimetic states.

Consider this, for instance:

What if Dan were the victim of a Multiple Personality Disorder (now known as “Dissociative Identity Disorder”)? What if one of his “alters” (i.e., one of the multitude of “identities” sharing Dan’s mind and body) committed the crime? Should Dan still be held responsible? What if the alter “John” committed the crime and then “vanished”, leaving behind another alter (let us say, “Joseph”) in control? Should “Joseph” be held responsible for the crime “John” committed? What if “John” were to reappear 10 years after he “vanished”? What if he were to reappear 50 years after he “vanished”? What if he were to reappear for a period of 90 days – only to “vanish” again? And what is Dan’s role in all this? Who, exactly, then, is Dan?

II. Who is Dan?

Buddhism compares Man to a river. Both retain their identity despite the fact that their individual composition is different at different moments. The possession of a body as the foundation of a self-identity is a dubious proposition. Bodies change drastically in time (consider a baby compared to an adult). Almost all the cells in a human body are replaced every few years. Changing one’s brain (by transplantation) – also changes one’s identity, even if the rest of the body remains the same.

Thus, the only thing that binds a “person” together (i.e., gives him a self and an identity) is time, or, more precisely, memory. By “memory” I also mean: personality, skills, habits, retrospected emotions – in short: all long term imprints and behavioural patterns. The body is not an accidental and insignificant container, of course. It constitutes an important part of one’s self-image, self-esteem, sense of self-worth, and sense of existence (spatial, temporal, and social). But one can easily imagine a brain in vitro as having the same identity as when it resided in a body. One cannot imagine a body without a brain (or with a different brain) as having the same identity it had before the brain was removed or replaced.

What if the brain in vitro (in the above example) could not communicate with us at all? Would we still think it is possessed of a self? The biological functions of people in coma are maintained. But do they have an identity, a self? If yes, why do we “pull the plug” on them so often?

It would seem (as it did to Locke) that we accept that someone has a self-identity if: (a) He has the same hardware as we do (notably, a brain) and (b) He communicates his humanly recognizable and comprehensible inner world to us and manipulates his environment. We accept that he has a given (i.e., the same continuous) self-identity if (c) He shows consistent intentional (i.e., willed) patterns (”memory”) in doing (b) for a long period of time.

It seems that we accept that we have a self-identity (i.e., we are self-conscious) if (a) We discern (usually through introspection) long term consistent intentional (i.e., willed) patterns (”memory”) in our manipulation (”relating to”) of our environment and (b) Others accept that we have a self-identity (Herbert Mead, Feuerbach).

Dan (probably) has the same hardware as we do (a brain). He communicates his (humanly recognizable and comprehensible) inner world to us (which is how he manipulates us and his environment). Thus, Dan clearly has a self-identity. But he is inconsistent. His intentional (willed) patterns, his memory, are incompatible with those demonstrated by Dan before the accident. Though he clearly is possessed of a self-identity, we cannot say that he has the SAME self-identity he possessed before the crash. In other words, we cannot say that he, indeed, is Dan.

Dan himself does not feel that he has a self-identity at all. He discerns intentional (willed) patterns in his manipulation of his environment but, due to his amnesia, he cannot tell if these are consistent, or long term. In other words, Dan has no memory. Moreover, others do not accept him as Dan (or have their doubts) because they have no memory of Dan as he is now.

Interim conclusion:

Having a memory is a necessary and sufficient condition for possessing a self-identity.

III. Repression

Yet, resorting to memory to define identity may appear to be a circular (even tautological) argument. When we postulate memory – don’t we already presuppose the existence of a “remembering agent” with an established self-identity?

Moreover, we keep talking about “discerning”, “intentional”, or “willed” patterns. But isn’t a big part of our self (in the form of the unconscious, full of repressed memories) unavailable to us? Don’t we develop defence mechanisms against repressed memories and fantasies, against unconscious content incongruent with our self-image? Even worse, this hidden, inaccessible, dynamically active part of our self is thought responsible for our recurrent discernible patterns of behaviour. The phenomenon of posthypnotic suggestion seems to indicate that this may be the case. The existence of a self-identity is, therefore, determined through introspection (by oneself) and observation (by others) of merely the conscious part of the self.

But the unconscious is as much a part of one’s self-identity as one’s conscious. What if, due to a mishap, the roles were reversed? What if Dan’s conscious part were to become his unconscious and his unconscious part – his conscious? What if all his conscious memories, drives, fears, wishes, fantasies, and hopes – were to become unconscious while his repressed memories, drives, etc. – were to become conscious? Would we still say that it is “the same” Dan and that he retains his self-identity? Not very likely. And yet, one’s (unremembered) unconscious – for instance, the conflict between id and ego – determines one’s personality and self-identity.

The main contribution of psychoanalysis and later psychodynamic schools is the understanding that self-identity is a dynamic, evolving, ever-changing construct – and not a static, inertial, and passive entity. It casts doubt over the meaningfulness of the question with which we ended the exposition: “Who, exactly, then, is Dan?” Dan is different at different stages of his life (Erikson) and he constantly evolves in accordance with his innate nature (Jung), past history (Adler), drives (Freud), cultural milieu (Horney), upbringing (Klein, Winnicott), needs (Murray), or the interplay with his genetic makeup. Dan is not a thing – he is a process. Even Dan’s personality traits and cognitive style, which may well be stable, are often influenced by Dan’s social setting and by his social interactions.

It would seem that having a memory is a necessary but insufficient condition for possessing a self-identity. One cannot remember one’s unconscious states (though one can remember their outcomes). One often forgets events, names, and other information even if it was conscious at a given time in one’s past. Yet, one’s (unremembered) unconscious is an integral and important part of one’s identity and one’s self. The remembered as well as the unremembered constitute one’s self-identity.

IV. The Memory Link

Hume said that to be considered in possession of a mind, a creature needs to have a few states of consciousness linked by memory in a kind of narrative or personal mythology. Can this conjecture be equally applied to unconscious mental states (e.g. subliminal perceptions, beliefs, drives, emotions, desires, etc.)?

In other words, can we rephrase Hume and say that to be considered in possession of a mind, a creature needs to have a few states of consciousness and a few states of the unconscious – all linked by memory into a personal narrative? Isn’t it a contradiction in terms to remember the unconscious?

The unconscious and the subliminal are instance of the general category of mental phenomena which are not states of consciousness (i.e., are not conscious). Sleep and hypnosis are two others. But so are “background mental phenomena” – e.g., one holds onto one’s beliefs and knowledge even when one is not aware (conscious) of them at every given moment. We know that an apple will fall towards the earth, we know how to drive a car (”automatically”), and we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, even though we do not spend every second of our waking life consciously thinking about falling apples, driving cars, or the position of the sun.

Yet, the fact that knowledge and beliefs and other background mental phenomena are not constantly conscious – does not mean that they cannot be remembered. They can be remembered either by an act of will, or in (sometimes an involuntary) response to changes in the environment. The same applies to all other unconscious content. Unconscious content can be recalled. Psychoanalysis, for instance, is about re-introducing repressed unconscious content to the patient’s conscious memory and thus making it “remembered”.

In fact, one’s self-identity may be such a background mental phenomenon (always there, not always conscious, not always remembered). The acts of will which bring it to the surface are what we call “memory” and “introspection”.

This would seem to imply that having a self-identity is independent of having a memory (or the ability to introspect). Memory is just the mechanism by which one becomes aware of one’s background, “always-on”, and omnipresent (all-pervasive) self-identity. Self-identity is the object and predicate of memory and introspection. It is as though self-identity were an emergent extensive parameter of the complex human system – measurable by the dual techniques of memory and introspection.

We, therefore, have to modify our previous conclusions:

Having a memory is not a necessary nor a sufficient condition for possessing a self-identity.

We are back to square one. The poor souls in Oliver Sacks’ tome, “The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat” are unable to create and retain memories. They occupy an eternal present, with no past. They are thus unable to access (or invoke) their self-identity by remembering it. Their self-identity is unavailable to them (though it is available to those who observe them over many years) – but it exists for sure. Therapy often succeeds in restoring pre-amnesiac memories and self-identity.

V. The Incorrigible Self

Self-identity is not only always-on and all-pervasive – but also incorrigible. In other words, no one – neither an observer, nor the person himself – can “disprove” the existence of his self-identity. No one can prove that a report about the existence of his (or another’s) self-identity is mistaken.

Is it equally safe to say that no one – neither an observer, nor the person himself – can prove (or disprove) the non-existence of his self-identity? Would it be correct to say that no one can prove that a report about the non-existence of his (or another’s) self-identity is true or false?

Dan’s criminal responsibility crucially depends on the answers to these questions. Dan cannot be held responsible for Jack’s murder if he can prove that he is ignorant of the facts of his action (i.e., if he can prove the non-existence of his self-identity). If he has no access to his (former) self-identity – he can hardly be expected to be aware and cognizant of these facts.

What is in question is not Dan’s mens rea, nor the application of the McNaghten tests (did Dan know the nature and quality of his act or could he tell right from wrong) to determine whether Dan was insane when he committed the crime. A much broader issue is at stake: is it the same person? Is the murderous Dan the same person as the current Dan? Even though Dan seems to own the same body and brain and is manifestly sane – he patently has no access to his (former) self-identity. He has changed so drastically that it is arguable whether he is still the same person – he has been “replaced”.

Finally, we can try to unite all the strands of our discourse into this double definition:

It would seem that we accept that someone has a self-identity if: (a) He has the same hardware as we do (notably, a brain) and, by implication, the same software as we do (an all-pervasive, omnipresent self-identity) and (b) He communicates his humanly recognizable and comprehensible inner world to us and manipulates his environment. We accept that he has a specific (i.e., the same continuous) self-identity if (c) He shows consistent intentional (i.e., willed) patterns (”memory”) in doing (b) for a long period of time.

It seems that we accept that we have a specific self-identity (i.e., we are self-conscious of a specific identity) if (a) We discern (usually through memory and introspection) long term consistent intentional (i.e., willed) patterns (”memory”) in our manipulation (”relating to”) of our environment and (b) Others accept that we have a specific self-identity.

In conclusion: Dan undoubtedly has a self-identity (being human and, thus, endowed with a brain). Equally undoubtedly, this self-identity is not Dan’s (but a new, unfamiliar, one).

Such is the stuff of our nightmares – body snatching, demonic possession, waking up in a strange place, not knowing who we are. Without a continuous personal history – we are not. It is what binds our various bodies, states of mind, memories, skills, emotions, and cognitions – into a coherent bundle of identity. Dan speaks, drinks, dances, talks, and makes love – but throughout that time, he is not present because he does not remember Dan and how it is to be Dan. He may have murdered Jake – but, by all philosophical and ethical criteria, it was most definitely not his fault.

The Shattered Identity is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

The effects of this driving force created a ripple affect on the surface of the pond making its way to the outer edges of the pond. You and I are this same driving force at the core of our being. Everything is energy. We all know its there even though we may not readily see it.

There are five experiences in our life allowing us to touch this energy or our soul.
Remember this: “What is the most human to us, often, is the most sacred.”

We touch our soul in the following ways:

1. The Sense of Smell.

When we breathe, we embrace our world. We draw in various aromas into our inner self. It is our opportunity to take in the world around us, and allow it to fill us with its essence. As we breathe, our soul absorbs the world around it through identification with the earth merging into what cannot be seen. It is the experience of spirit expressing itself in unlimited ways.

2. The Sense of Taste.

Taste allows us to tangibly experience different qualities of our world. As a child, we experienced our world through the sense of taste. It was as though our life was meant to be devoured. In a real way, our sense of taste helps us to determine if we like or do not like what is before us i.e. food, experiences, or way of life.

3. The Sense of Touch.

Our ability to feel the world awakens our body. Touch sends vibrations throughout our body in the form of tingling sensations. These tingling sensations are expressions of consciousness helping our body understand the direction of spirit in our lives and our place in the world. It is the home of our soul, yet our body cannot fully contain it alone. At the same time, our body is a symbol radiating our unique expression of our soul.

4. The Sense of Sight.

The gift of sight enables us to take in the world through visual contact with the world around us. As we draw in our environment, we become part of it and it becomes part of us. Eventually, we deepen this sense of sight creating the ability to see from within. At this point, we are able to see through our eyes, and not, just with them. Here, we see with the eyes of soul. We see with the eyes of unconditional love.

5. The Sense of Hearing.

What do we really hear? Sounds are echoes, vibrations interacting with the vibrations of another entity. Behind every sound or word is a tone, a quality of sound, we can connect to within us. The resonance of sound creates signals inside us that we may choose to repel or encompass. As we discern these inner qualities of what appears before us in sound, we are getting in tune with the soul of another person, place, or thing.

——————————————————————————–

When you throw a rock into a pond, I suspect you have a difficult time watching it float all the way to the bottom. The deeper your rock enters the pond, the harder it becomes to see with your five senses. A higher sense of yourself is engaged.

As your imagination and your heart begins to direct your perspective on this experience, your soul is revealed. It is the part of you able to sense and know your rock eventually reached its destination. Although you may not be able to see the foundation of the pond below its surface, you know it is there.

Sam Oliver, author of, “Integrating the Feminine Spirit: Returning to the Womb of Creation”

The Senses of Soul is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

Only a few belong to the Exclusive Type – the ones who are tempted solely by kids. Nine tenths of all pedophiles are male. They are fascinated by preteen females, teenage males, or (more rarely) both.

Moreover, at least one fifth (and probably more) of the population have pedophiliac fantasies. The prevalence of child pornography and child prostitution prove it. Pedophiles start out as “normal” people and are profoundly shocked and distressed to discover their illicit sexual preference for the prepubertal. The process and mechanisms of transition from socially acceptable sexuality to much-condemned (and criminal) pedophilia are still largely mysterious.

Pedophiles seem to have narcissistic and antisocial (psychopathic) traits. They lack empathy for their victims and express no remorse for their actions. They are in denial and, being pathological confabulators, they rationalize their transgressions, claiming that the children were merely being educated for their own good and, anyhow, derived great pleasure from it.

The pedophile’s ego-syntony rests on his alloplastic defenses. He generally tends to blame others (or the world or the “system”) for his misfortunes, failures, and deficiencies. Pedophiles frequently accuse their victims of acting promiscuously, of “coming on to them”, of actively tempting, provoking, and luring (or even trapping) them.

The pedophile – similar to the autistic patient – misinterprets the child’s body language and inter-personal cues. His social communication skills are impaired and he fails to adjust information gained to the surrounding circumstances (for instance, to the kid’s age and maturity).

Coupled with his lack of empathy, this recurrent inability to truly comprehend others cause the pedophile to objectify the targets of his lasciviousness. Pedophilia is, in essence, auto-erotic. The pedophile uses children’s bodies to masturbate with. Hence the success of the Internet among pedophiles: it offers disembodied, anonymous, masturbatory sex. Children in cyberspace are mere representations – often nothing more than erotic photos and screen names.

It is crucial to realize that pedophiles are not enticed by the children themselves, by their bodies, or by their budding and nubile sexuality (remember Nabokov’s Lolita?). Rather, pedophiles are drawn to what children symbolize, to what preadolescents stand for and represent.

To the pedophile …

I. Sex with children is “free” and “daring”

Sex with subteens implies freedom of action with impunity. It enhances the pedophile’s magical sense of omnipotence and immunity. By defying the authority of the state and the edicts of his culture and society, the pedophile experiences an adrenaline rush to which he gradually becomes addicted. Illicit sex becomes the outlet for his urgent need to live dangerously and recklessly.

The pedophile is on a quest to reassert control over his life. Studies have consistently shown that pedophilia is associated with anomic states (war, famine, epidemics) and with major life crises (failure, relocation, infidelity of spouse, separation, divorce, unemployment, bankruptcy, illness, death of the offender’s nearest and dearest).

It is likely – though hitherto unsubstantiated by research – that the typical pedophile is depressive and with a borderline personality (low organization and fuzzy personal boundaries). Pedophiles are reckless and emotionally labile. The pedophile’s sense of self-worth is volatile and dysregulated. He is likely to suffer from abandonment anxiety and be a codependent or counterdependent.

Paradoxically, it is by seemingly losing control in one aspect of his life (sex) that the pedophile re-acquires a sense of mastery. The same mechanism is at work in the development of eating disorders. An inhibitory deficit is somehow magically perceived as omnipotence.

II. Sex with children is corrupt and decadent

The pedophile makes frequent (though unconscious) use of projection and projective identification in his relationships with children. He makes his victims treat him the way he views himself – or attributes to them traits and behaviors that are truly his.

The pedophile is aware of society’s view of his actions as vile, corrupt, forbidden, evil, and decadent (especially if the pedophiliac act involves incest). He derives pleasure from the sleazy nature of his pursuits because it tends to sustain his view of himself as “bad”, “a failure”, “deserving of punishment”, and “guilty”.

In extreme (mercifully uncommon) cases, the pedophile projects these torturous feelings and self-perceptions onto his victims. The children defiled and abused by his sexual attentions thus become “rotten”, “bad objects”, guilty and punishable. This leads to sexual sadism, lust rape, and snuff murders.

III. Sex with children is a reenactment of a painful past

Many pedophile truly bond with their prey. To them, children are the reification of innocence, genuineness, trust, and faithfulness – qualities that the pedophile wishes to nostalgically recapture.

The relationship with the child provides the pedophile with a “safe passage” to his own, repressed and fearful, inner child. Through his victim, the pedophile gains access to his suppressed and thwarted emotions. It is a fantasy-like second chance to reenact his childhood, this time benignly. The pedophile’s dream to make peace with his past comes true transforming the interaction with the child to an exercise in wish fulfillment.

IV. Sex with children is a shared psychosis

The pedophile treats “his” chosen child as an object, an extension of himself, devoid of a separate existence and denuded of distinct needs. He finds the child’s submissiveness and gullibility gratifying. He frowns on any sign of personal autonomy and regards it as a threat. By intimidating, cajoling, charming, and making false promises, the abuser isolates his prey from his family, school, peers, and from the rest of society and, thus, makes the child’s dependence on him total.

To the pedophile, the child is a “transitional object” – a training ground on which to exercise his adult relationship skills. The pedophile erroneously feels that the child will never betray and abandon him, therefore guaranteeing “object constancy”.

The pedophile stealthily but unfailingly exploits the vulnerabilities in the psychological makeup of his victim. The child may have low self-esteem, a fluctuating sense of self-worth, primitive defence mechanisms, phobias, mental health problems, a disability, a history of failure, bad relations with parents, siblings, teachers, or peers, or a tendency to blame herself, or to feel inadequate (autoplastic neurosis). The kid may come from an abusive family or environment which conditioned her or him to expect abuse as inevitable and “normal”. In extreme and rare cases the victim is a masochist, possessed of an urge to seek ill-treatment and pain.

The pedophile is the guru at the center of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from his “partner”. He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his child-mate. He punishes the wayward and the straying lambs. He enforces discipline.

The child finds himself in a twilight zone. The pedophile imposes on him a shared psychosis, replete with persecutory delusions, “enemies”, mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios if he is flouted. The child is rendered the joint guardian of a horrible secret.

The pedophile’s control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines rights and obligations and alters them at will.

The typical pedophile is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviors. He punishes severely and abuses withholders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes and goals.

The pedophile does not respect the boundaries and privacy of the (often reluctant and terrified) child. He ignores his or her wishes and treats children as objects or instruments of gratification. He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively.

The pedophile acts in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes often. He alternates between emphasizing the minutest faults (devalues) and exaggerating the looks, talents, traits, and skills (idealizes) of the child. He is wildly unrealistic in his expectations which legitimizes his subsequent abusive conduct.

Narcissistic pedophiles claim to be infallible, superior, talented, skillful, omnipotent, and omniscient. They often lie and confabulate to support these unfounded claims and to justify their actions. Most pedophiles suffer from cognitive deficits and reinterpret reality to fit their fantasies.

In extreme cases, the pedophile feels above the law any kind of law. This grandiose and haughty conviction leads to criminal acts, incestuous or polygamous relationships, and recurrent friction with the authorities.

V. The pedophile regards sex with children as an ego-booster

Subteen children are, by definition, “inferior”. They are physically weaker, dependent on others for the fulfillment of many of their needs, cognitively and emotionally immature, and easily manipulated. Their fund of knowledge is limited and their skills restricted. His relationships with children buttress the pedophile’s twin grandiose delusions of omnipotence and omniscience. Compared to his victims, the pedophiles is always the stronger, the wiser, the most skillful and well-informed.

VI. Sex with children guarantees companionship

Inevitably, the pedophile considers his child-victims to be his best friends and companions. Pedophiles are lonely, erotomanic, people.

The pedophile believes that he is in love with (or simply loves) the child. Sex is merely one way to communicate his affection and caring. But there are other venues.

To show his keen interest, the common pedophile keeps calling the child, dropping by, writing e-mails, giving gifts, providing services, doing unsolicited errands “on the kid’s behalf”, getting into relationships with the preteen’s parents, friends, teachers, and peers, and, in general, making himself available (stalking) at all times. The pedophile feels free to make legal, financial, and emotional decisions for the child.

The pedophile intrudes on the victim’s privacy, disrespects the child’s express wishes and personal boundaries and ignores his or her emotions, needs, and preferences. To the pedophile, “love” means enmeshment and clinging coupled with an overpowering separation anxiety (fear of being abandoned).

Moreover, no amount of denials, chastising, threats, and even outright hostile actions convince the erotomaniac that the child not in love with him. He knows better and will make the world see the light as well. The child and his guardians are simply unaware of what is good for the kid. The pedophile determinedly sees it as his or her task to bring life and happiness into the child’s dreary and unhappy existence.

Thus, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the pedophile is convinced that his feelings are reciprocated – in other words, that the child is equally infatuated with him or her. He interprets everything the child does (or refrains from doing) as coded messages confessing to and conveying the child’s interest in and eternal devotion to the pedophile and to the “relationship”.

Some (by no means all) pedophiles are socially-inapt, awkward, schizoid, and suffer from a host of mood and anxiety disorders. They may also be legitimately involved with the child (e.g., stepfather, former spouse, teacher, gym instructor, sibling) – or with his parents (for instance, a former boyfriend, a one night stand, colleagues or co-workers). They are driven by their all-consuming loneliness and all-pervasive fantasies.

Consequently, pedophiles react badly to any perceived rejection by their victims. They turn on a dime and become dangerously vindictive, out to destroy the source of their mounting frustration. When the “relationship” looks hopeless, some pedophiles violently embark on a spree of self-destruction.

Pedophilia is to some extent a culture-bound syndrome, defined as it is by the chronological age of the child involved. Ephebophilia, for instance – the exclusive sexual infatuation with teenagers – is not considered to be a form of pedophilia (or even paraphilia).

In some cultures, societies and countries (Afghanistan, for instance) the age of consent is as low as 12. The marriageable age in Britain until the end of the nineteenth century was 10. Pedophilia is a common and socially-condoned practice in certain tribal societies and isolated communities (the Island of Pitcairn).

It would, therefore, be wise to redefine pedophilia as an attraction to or sexual acts with prepubescent children or with people of the equivalent mental age (e.g., retarded) in contravention of social, legal, and cultural accepted practices.

The Roots of Pedophilia is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

Anna Freud

Towards the end of the 19th century, the new discipline of psychology became entrenched in both Europe and America. The study of the human mind, hitherto a preserve of philosophers and theologians, became a legitimate subject of scientific (some would say, pseudo-scientific) scrutiny.

The Structuralists – Wilhelm Wundt and Edward Bradford Titchener – embarked on a fashionable search for the “atoms” of consciousness: physical sensations, affections or feelings, and images (in both memories and dreams). Functionalists, headed by William James and, later, James Angell and John Dewey – derided the idea of a “pure”, elemental sensation. They introduced the concept of mental association. Experience uses associations to alter the nervous system, they hypothesized.

Freud revolutionized the field (though, at first, his reputation was limited to the German-speaking parts of the dying Habsburg Empire). He dispensed with the unitary nature of the psyche and proposed instead a trichotomy, a tripartite or trilateral model (the id, ego, and superego). He suggested that our natural state is conflict, that anxiety and tension are more prevalent than harmony. Equilibrium (compromise formation) is achieved by constantly investing mental energy. Hence “psychodynamics”.

Most of our existence is unconscious, Freud theorized. The conscious is but the tip of an ever-increasing iceberg. He introduced the concepts of libido and Thanatos (the life and death forces), instincts (Triebe, or “drives”, in German) or drives, the somatic-erotogenic phases of psychic (personality) development, trauma and fixation, manifest and latent content (in dreams). Even his intellectual adversaries used this vocabulary, often infused with new meanings.

The psychotherapy he invented, based on his insights, was less formidable. Many of its tenets and procedures have been discarded early on, even by its own proponents and practitioners. The rule of abstinence (the therapist as a blank and hidden screen upon which the patient projects or transfers his repressed emotions), free association as the exclusive technique used to gain access to and unlock the unconscious, dream interpretation with the mandatory latent and forbidden content symbolically transformed into the manifest – have all literally vanished within the first decades of practice.

Other postulates – most notably transference and counter-transference, ambivalence, resistance, regression, anxiety, and conversion symptoms – have survived to become cornerstones of modern therapeutic modalities, whatever their origin. So did, in various disguises, the idea that there is a clear path leading from unconscious (or conscious) conflict to signal anxiety, to repression, and to symptom formation (be it neuroses, rooted in current deprivation, or psychoneuroses, the outcomes of childhood conflicts). The existence of anxiety-preventing defense mechanisms is also widely accepted.

Freud’s initial obsession with sex as the sole driver of psychic exchange and evolution has earned him derision and diatribe aplenty. Clearly, a child of the repressed sexuality of Victorian times and the Viennese middle-class, he was fascinated with perversions and fantasies. The Oedipus and Electra complexes are reflections of these fixations. But their origin in Freud’s own psychopathologies does not render them less revolutionary. Even a century later, child sexuality and incest fantasies are more or less taboo topics of serious study and discussion.

Ernst Kris said in 1947 that Psychoanalysis is:

“…(N)othing but human behavior considered from the standpoint of conflict. It is the picture of the mind divided against itself with attendant anxiety and other dysphoric effects, with adaptive and maladaptive defensive and coping strategies, and with symptomatic behaviors when the defense fail.”

But Psychoanalysis is more than a theory of the mind. It is also a theory of the body and of the personality and of society. It is a Social Sciences Theory of Everything. It is a bold – and highly literate – attempt to tackle the psychophysical problem and the Cartesian body versus mind conundrum. Freud himself noted that the unconscious has both physiological (instinct) and mental (drive) aspects. He wrote:

“(The unconscious is) a concept on the frontier between the mental and the somatic, as the physical representative of the stimuli originating from within the organism and reaching the mind” (Standard Edition Volume XIV).

Psychoanalysis is, in many ways, the application of Darwin’s theory of evolution in psychology and sociology. Survival is transformed into narcissism and the reproductive instincts assume the garb of the Freudian sex drive. But Freud went a daring step forward by suggesting that social structures and strictures (internalized as the superego) are concerned mainly with the repression and redirection of natural instincts. Signs and symbols replace reality and all manner of substitutes (such as money) stand in for primary objects in our early formative years.

To experience our true selves and to fulfill our wishes, we resort to Phantasies (e.g., dreams, “screen memories”) where imagery and irrational narratives – displaced, condensed, rendered visually, revised to produce coherence, and censored to protect us from sleep disturbances – represent our suppressed desires. Current neuroscience tends to refute this “dreamwork” conjecture but its value is not to be found in its veracity (or lack thereof).

These musings about dreams, slips of tongue, forgetfulness, the psychopathology of everyday life, and associations were important because they were the first attempt at deconstruction, the first in-depth insight into human activities such as art, myth-making, propaganda, politics, business, and warfare, and the first coherent explanation of the convergence of the aesthetic with the “ethic” (i.e., the socially acceptable and condoned). Ironically, Freud’s contributions to cultural studies may far outlast his “scientific” “theory” of the mind.

It is ironic that Freud, a medical doctor (neurologist), the author of a “Project for a Scientific Psychology”, should be so chastised by scientists in general and neuroscientists in particular. Psychoanalysis used to be practiced only by psychiatrists. But we live at an age when mental disorders are thought to have physiological-chemical-genetic origins. All psychological theories and talk therapies are disparaged by “hard” scientists.

Still, the pendulum had swung both ways many times before. Hippocrates ascribed mental afflictions to a balance of bodily humors (blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile) that is out of kilt. So did Galen, Bartholomeus Anglicus, Johan Weyer (1515-88). Paracelsus (1491-1541), and Thomas Willis, who attributed psychological disorders to a functional “fault of the brain”.

The tide turned with Robert Burton who wrote “Anatomy of Melancholy” and published it in 1621. He forcefully propounded the theory that psychic problems are the sad outcomes of poverty, fear, and solitude.

A century later, Francis Gall (1758-1828) and Spurzheim (1776-1832) traced mental disorders to lesions of specific areas of the brain, the forerunner of the now-discredited discipline of phrenology. The logical chain was simple: the brain is the organ of the mind, thus, various faculties can be traced to its parts.

Morel, in 1809, proposed a compromise which has since ruled the discourse. The propensities for psychological dysfunctions, he suggested, are inherited but triggered by adverse environmental conditions. A Lamarckist, he was convinced that acquired mental illnesses are handed down the generations. Esquirol concurred in 1845 as did Henry Maudsley in 1879 and Adolf Meyer soon thereafter. Heredity predisposes one to suffer from psychic malaise but psychological and “moral” (social) causes precipitate it.

And, yet, the debate was and is far from over. Wilhelm Greisinger published “The Pathology and Therapy of Mental Disorders” in 1845. In it he traced their etiology to “neuropathologies”, physical disorders of the brain. He allowed for heredity and the environment to play their parts, though. He was also the first to point out the importance of one’s experiences in one’s first years of life.

Jean-Martin Charcot, a neurologist by training, claimed to have cured hysteria with hypnosis. But despite this demonstration of non-physiological intervention, he insisted that hysteroid symptoms were manifestations of brain dysfunction. Weir Mitchell coined the term “neurasthenia” to describe an exhaustion of the nervous system (depression). Pierre Janet discussed the variations in the strength of the nervous activity and said that they explained the narrowing field of consciousness (whatever that meant).

None of these “nervous” speculations was supported by scientific, experimental evidence. Both sides of the debate confined themselves to philosophizing and ruminating. Freud was actually among the first to base a theory on actual clinical observations. Gradually, though, his work – buttressed by the concept of sublimation – became increasingly metaphysical. Its conceptual pillars came to resemble Bergson’s lan vital and Schopenhauer’s Will. French philosopher Paul Ricoeur called Psychoanalysis (depth psychology) “the hermeneutics of suspicion”.

The Revolution of Psychoanalysis is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com

Lucidity is not the same as dream control. It is possible to be lucid and have little control over the dream. However, becoming lucid in a dream is likely to increase your ability to deliberately influence the events within the dream. With practice you may extend the amount of control that you have over dream events. Many lucid dreamers choose to do something permitted only by the extraordinary freedom of the dream state, such as flying.

Some people have objections to lucid dreams. They say that it is un-natural and could be harmful to the psyche. In my opinion this is not true at all. Perhaps if all of our dreams were lucid and controlled there may be some harm, but with our lucid dreams spread out among many “normal” dreams we have plenty of time for non-lucid dreaming.

While we are in a dream our mind accepts what we see and feel as reality. We often find ourselves in very unusual circumstances when compared to our waking life. You could be living in a different house or driving a different car. The sky could be green and the river yellow. In most cases we accept these things as being true. Why doesn’t the mind “think” ‘Hey! I don’t have this vehicle’ or ‘This isn’t where I live!’ or even ‘Hey! I know the sky isn’t supposed to be that color!’

This is what I call incongruities. Things in our dreams that are not “normal”. We must wonder, and many have, why our mind so readily accepts anything we experience within our dreams as being real. We know there are no monsters. We know the proper colors for things. We know our home and our daily life. While we are dreaming we often forget these things and we believe what we see in the dream.

Just knowing this and thinking about it can actually help you on your way to a lucid dream experience. An incongruity is one of the triggers to lucid dreaming. A trigger is that which inspires or begins lucidity.

Here is an example of this from one of my own lucid dreams:

I was driving a blue Ford Bronco down a dirt road. I think it was a late 70’s model. There was a young boy in the passenger seat. I was giving him a ride because his motorcycle had run out of gas. The bike was in the back. Suddenly I realized it. I did not own a blue Bronco! In the dream I slammed on the breaks and held my hands up. “I don’t own a Ford bronco!” I said, “I am dreaming!” from that point on I was lucid.

A recurring dream or nightmare can also be used as a trigger. If you have a recurring dream make a conscious effort to realize that you are dreaming the next time you are in that situation. If the dream involves a certain person or place try to think as you go to sleep, “The next time I see that house I will know that I am dreaming”. Since the dream is recurring it wont be long before you see that house, person, etc. This may take several attempts. Don’t be discouraged if it doesn’t work the very first time.

Another technique that works for a lot of people is asking yourself “Am I dreaming?” and leaving notes for yourself. Several times a day ask yourself the question aloud. Also write the question on a note and put it on the refrigerator. Put the same message in other places where you will see them throughout the day. Many people will find them self asking that question or seeing the question written on a note while they are actually dreaming. This will trigger a lucid dream.

My first lucid dream, that is the first one I had when I was trying to achieve lucidity, was triggered by a flying dream.

Try to go to sleep in the same place and around the same time as much as possible. It is best to sleep with silence as music or other sounds can affect your dreaming. If you do choose to listen to music while you are going to sleep choose soft and soothing music, preferably without vocals. Use the same music each time. Before you go to sleep concentrate on a trigger. My first time I said, “tonight I will fly”, aloud several times and I concentrated on it. The second night I had a flying dream but I did not become lucid. On the fourth night I had another flying dream and at that time I became lucid. I was then able to fly to wherever I wanted to!

The trigger or combination of triggers that you use will depend upon you. If you have a common dream theme this is a great trigger. Just concentrate on the next time that you see or experience that you will be dreaming. Think of it as often as you can while you are awake.

Lucid dreamers often comment to themselves in dreams. You may say aloud, “This is a dream! I know that I am dreaming.”

Make a list of questions that you have about dreams. Read the list often and look over it several times and concentrate on it before you go to bed.

Can you read text in a dream? Can you add numbers in a dream? These were some questions I had on my list at one time. I had read in a dream book that it was not possible to read text or to calculate numbers in a dream, but I didn’t believe it. I eventually found myself lucid in an office. I walked over to a calendar on the wall and I read the text describing a New England farm house. I turned to another man there and said, “You see? You can read text in a dream!” I turned back to the calendar to read again and found that the words had completely changed. That amazed me and I commented to the other man about it. Next I walked over to a desk and found a calculator. I added and subtracted numbers and came up with correct answers. Yes, you can read text and perform mathematics in a dream. I proved it to myself beyond any doubt and with more confidence than I ever could have by reading anything about dreams.

Keep a Dream Journal

Keeping a dream journal is one of the most effective tools to achieving lucid dreams. Try to write down your dreams as soon after you wake up as you can. Don’t just write a narrative of what took place in the dream. Record your thoughts and emotions felt. This will help you later on as you develop your dreaming research. Be sure to note all major elements, such as people, places, animals, etc.

Keeping a dream journal will also help you a great deal in understanding your non-lucid dreams. As you continue to write in your journal and re-read your previous entries you will begin to see parallels with your dreams and your life. Gradually you will be able to recognize what the symbols in your dreams are really saying to you.

Once lucid in a dream, people can often choose their actions and exert some deliberate control over the dream content. This ability has been utilized in the laboratory to study lucid dreaming and dream psychophysiology. For example, proof that lucid dreams occur in REM sleep was achieved by having subjects give a prearranged distinct signal with deliberate eye movements to mark the points in time when they realized they were dreaming. The dreamers’ reports of the eye movements they had made in the dreams corresponded exactly to their physical eye movements as recorded by means of electro-oculograms on a polygraph record. Reports from experiments conducted using eye movement signaling in lucid dreams can be found in the literature (Dane, 1984; Fenwick et al., 1984; Hearne, 1978; LaBerge, Nagel, Dement & Zarcone, 1981; Ogilvie, Hunt, Kushniruk, & Newman, 1983).

What Are The Benefits of Lucid Dreaming?

The scientific study of dreaming and REM sleep

A variety of psychological and recreational applications.

Lucid dreaming can be a powerful tool for overcoming nightmares

In therapy, lucid dreams appear to be promising for providing personal insight, assisting with integration, and as a safe environment for experimentation with new behaviors (LaBerge & Rheingold, 1990).

Many lay people are attracted to lucid dreaming because it offers an outlet for fantasy, an opportunity for adventure unfettered by the laws of physics or society, and free of risk. As such, lucid dreaming is for many a source of creative and inspiring recreation. Anecdotes indicate that lucid dreams are helpful for artistic creativity, problem-solving, and practicing skills for waking life (LaBerge & Rheingold, 1990).

Dreams hold the most vivid mental images attainable by most people. Lucid dreaming is probably the best method for achieving the benefits such as enhancing physical performance, learning, remembering and facilitating healing.

REFERENCES

Dane, J. (1984). An empirical evaluation of two techniques for lucid dream induction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State Univ.

Fenwick, P., Schatzman, M., Worsley, A., Adams, J., Stone, S., & Baker, A. (1984). Lucid dreaming: Correspondence between dreamed and actual events in one subject during REM sleep. Biological Psychol, 18, 243-252.

Hearne, K. M. T. (1978). Lucid dreams: An electrophysiological and psychological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, U of Liverpool.

LaBerge, S., Nagel, L., Dement, W., & Zarcone, V. (1981). Lucid dreaming verified by volitional communication during REM sleep. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 52, 727-732.

Ogilvie, R., Hunt, H., Kushniruk, A. & Newman, J. (1983). Lucid dreams and the arousal continuum. Sleep Research, 12, 182.

LaBerge, S. & Rheingold, H. (1990). Exploring the world of lucid
dreaming. New York: Ballantine.

How to Experience a Lucid Dream is a post from: Reference Education Center | FTP2009Istanbul.com