I'd like to offer my wishes to you that 2011 might be one of the best years you've ever had. Along with these good wishes I offer my prayers for an ever deepening awareness of the inescapable inter-connectedness of all life, of the universality of pain and distress, and of the most sane response to these awarenesses - compassion, for self and for all others. Also, may these awarenesses engender a broader and deeper
realization and practice of justice in an apparently unjust world. May we come to see and to experience ourselves more fully as responsible not only for what we each say and do individually, but as having a certain human responsibility for the welfare of all, as well.
It's ironic, and sad really, even deeply troubling, that people often believe that they can achieve happiness by focusing exclusively on their own well being, thinking that this focus need have nothing to do with anyone else in the world. In my work I see people who are in distress of one kind or another, and these people naturally want relief from their distress. It may or may not surprise you to know that whatever the nature of the distress you, or someone else might be experiencing, their is (almost?) always a common element. That element is about relationship. This is true to such an extent that some people go to the extremes of total, or nearly total avoidance of other people in order to try to diminish or eliminate their distress. Others of course go to the other extreme of seemingly limitless and indiscriminate interactions with so many people that a true sense of order is impossible, this also in an attempt to control and/or avoid their own distress.
What both groups of people, and many people in the middle zones as well, fail to see or to understand or to value, is the inescapability of relationship, even if it is "only" the relationship one has with oneself. In the colloquial formula, wherever you go, there you are.
For 2011, may we all come to see, to understand, and to value, the incomparable richness of, and the inevitably present nature of relationship, and may we all come to understand that the only sane, rewarding, viable, sustainable, life affirming, happiness promoting approach to all relationship is one of love and compassion, in the strongest and most liberating meanings of these words.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Sunday, November 21, 2010
"In Treatment", Part Two
Whew! I'm very happy to say that I am much relieved after watching episode two of season two. Paul has been transformed! In any case, his professional performance has taken a dramatic and wonderful turn for the better. Maybe I shouldn't have worried? Maybe I should have understood that the requirements of TV drama were at work, and that in some way, all would return to a happy homeostasis. Of course, and no doubt, these very same requirements will give us other moments of tension regarding Paul, in both his personal and his professional life. (Those of you already into season three, please indulge my time warp experience of what is now well in the past for you. Perhaps all is well now, in a future that I cannot see. But probably not. Not if the series is to continue, eh?)
mdavid-lpcc.com
mdavid-lpcc.com
Monday, November 15, 2010
"In Treatment" on HBO
It seems that so many people, including me, enjoy this cable tv show, now in its third season. I have to wait a year after the season ends to get it on netflix, since cable isn't available where I live, so I'm just now starting to watch season two. I was talking with my wife about the first episode while and after we were watching it recently, and there is a point that I feel almost compelled to make.
My concern is that most people who are watching this series - that is to say, the lay audience - might not be aware, unless they may have experienced some good therapy themselves as clients, that this series is presenting a portrait of a therapist in crisis, both personally and professionally, and that what the viewing audience is witnessing is a practitioner who is significantly compromised in his abilities to provide good therapy. In other words, we are seeing, often, the delivery of "bad" therapy.
I confirmed this just yesterday with a good friend who also enjoys the series. He acknowledged that he was not aware of this, and that it hadn't occurred to him that "Paul" was not doing a good professional job of it. My friend's partner however, who has experienced long term therapy of her own, did have more of a sense of some of Paul's shortcomings.
I'm concerned about this because people may well view this brilliantly produced and acted series thinking that what they are seeing is what good therapy is like, when it is not, or that they may indeed be turned away from therapy because they might sense or feel that something is "off" in Paul's work, but think that this is what therapy consists of. Yikes! Of course, there is already enough stigma, still - imagine that here we are in the 21st century, and there is still an enormous bias against "mental health" treatment; it's very nearly incomprehensible, but there it is nonetheless - when it comes to therapy. We don't need any more.
The hopeful bit is that at the end of episode one of season two, Paul recognizes that he needs to be back in therapy himself, and plans to begin again with his long time professor, mentor, friend and, now, therapist, Gina (This relationship, by the way, raises other important questions which I won't go into here and now). Good for him. We all hope, of course, that he will benefit personally, and improve professionally as a result. His patients deserve, and require, no less.
mdavid-lpcc.com
My concern is that most people who are watching this series - that is to say, the lay audience - might not be aware, unless they may have experienced some good therapy themselves as clients, that this series is presenting a portrait of a therapist in crisis, both personally and professionally, and that what the viewing audience is witnessing is a practitioner who is significantly compromised in his abilities to provide good therapy. In other words, we are seeing, often, the delivery of "bad" therapy.
I confirmed this just yesterday with a good friend who also enjoys the series. He acknowledged that he was not aware of this, and that it hadn't occurred to him that "Paul" was not doing a good professional job of it. My friend's partner however, who has experienced long term therapy of her own, did have more of a sense of some of Paul's shortcomings.
I'm concerned about this because people may well view this brilliantly produced and acted series thinking that what they are seeing is what good therapy is like, when it is not, or that they may indeed be turned away from therapy because they might sense or feel that something is "off" in Paul's work, but think that this is what therapy consists of. Yikes! Of course, there is already enough stigma, still - imagine that here we are in the 21st century, and there is still an enormous bias against "mental health" treatment; it's very nearly incomprehensible, but there it is nonetheless - when it comes to therapy. We don't need any more.
The hopeful bit is that at the end of episode one of season two, Paul recognizes that he needs to be back in therapy himself, and plans to begin again with his long time professor, mentor, friend and, now, therapist, Gina (This relationship, by the way, raises other important questions which I won't go into here and now). Good for him. We all hope, of course, that he will benefit personally, and improve professionally as a result. His patients deserve, and require, no less.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Psychotherapy: A Place To "Dump"?
So is this beneficial to me?, she asked, after a long session of sharing her life and work. I'm not inside you, I said, I can't say. What do you think? Yes, she said, it has been beneficial. It's helpful to have a place to "dump".
I confess: A part of me cringes when I hear this. Is that what psychotherapy is about? A place for people to "dump" their "stuff" (or more graphically, their "shit"), as in, turn it over to me so that they imagine that they are now free of it? Well, I know how I answer this question: of course not. And yet...............
there is clearly some benefit for people, initially at least, in realizing that they can talk candidly and in some depth about their lives, about what they struggle with, about, for example, being sometimes morally compromised on the job, and that they will not be judged or criticized for this. For new clients especially, this experience is often unique and perhaps unprecedented in their lives. As an early step then, it has benefit, and this benefit is palpable. Also, it helps to set the stage for a pattern of exploration that will no doubt go deeper
as the therapeutic process proceeds, and can provide (almost) immediate feedback about the potential inherent in this process.
I suppose I can relax some about the implications, to me in any case, of "dumping".
My fear is that a client will imagine or assume that this dumping is all there is to it, and that by doing this, they have actually done meaningful therapeutic work, when, in my view, they have only introduced themselves to a possibility. Really though, when there is sufficient motivation to continue, the nature of therapy will become more and more clear, and the necessity to participate in other, perhaps more challenging ways will become so also.
mdavid-lpcc.com
I confess: A part of me cringes when I hear this. Is that what psychotherapy is about? A place for people to "dump" their "stuff" (or more graphically, their "shit"), as in, turn it over to me so that they imagine that they are now free of it? Well, I know how I answer this question: of course not. And yet...............
there is clearly some benefit for people, initially at least, in realizing that they can talk candidly and in some depth about their lives, about what they struggle with, about, for example, being sometimes morally compromised on the job, and that they will not be judged or criticized for this. For new clients especially, this experience is often unique and perhaps unprecedented in their lives. As an early step then, it has benefit, and this benefit is palpable. Also, it helps to set the stage for a pattern of exploration that will no doubt go deeper
as the therapeutic process proceeds, and can provide (almost) immediate feedback about the potential inherent in this process.
I suppose I can relax some about the implications, to me in any case, of "dumping".
My fear is that a client will imagine or assume that this dumping is all there is to it, and that by doing this, they have actually done meaningful therapeutic work, when, in my view, they have only introduced themselves to a possibility. Really though, when there is sufficient motivation to continue, the nature of therapy will become more and more clear, and the necessity to participate in other, perhaps more challenging ways will become so also.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Thursday, September 16, 2010
A New Look At The Role Of Psychotherapy In Society
OK. I'll go out on a limb. I'll say that "mental health", in its deepest sense, cannot exist without an active psycho-spiritual orientation toward the welfare of others.
This would then logically extend to an active political and social orientation in this direction; and to an active "environmental" orientation of this kind as well.
Mental health in this deep and broad sense cannot exist in a psycho-spiritual, socio-political, environmental vacuum. Is it mental health for a species - in this case humans - to actively and knowingly destroy its own habitat, its own means of pro-generation, and the possibility of its own continuation? I'd say it is not, and in fact that it is a form of insanity.
Now, in light of the way I am defining mental (psycho-spiritual/emotional) health, what then is the role of psychotherapy? What is its legitimate scope? What are its legitimate questions and concerns as regarding the individual, the couple, the family, the species?
If you suffer from anxiety, for example, and you do not see yourself as a small manifest extension of a much larger and much greater system of existence, a system which has direct and inevitable effects on you, the small individual, it will be more difficult, I suggest, to 1) understand your anxiety, and to 2) do anything genuinely healing/remedial about it. If you suffer from depression, and have not been able to achieve relief through bio-chemical treatments alone, and also do not understand your depression in a cultural/experiential context, it will be more difficult (impossible?), I suggest, to 1) understand your depression, and to 2) do anything genuinely healing/remedial about it.
If your marriage is strained and struggling because you and your spouse don't seem to be able to talk to each other without slipping into another self defeating argument, and you lead your lives dedicated to a system of values and beliefs that by its nature opposes collaborative relationship, how will you be able to remedy this dysfunction?
The idea of systems in psychotherapy is nothing new. I think we have not taken this idea far enough, nor understood its implications thoroughly enough.
mdavid-lpcc.com
This would then logically extend to an active political and social orientation in this direction; and to an active "environmental" orientation of this kind as well.
Mental health in this deep and broad sense cannot exist in a psycho-spiritual, socio-political, environmental vacuum. Is it mental health for a species - in this case humans - to actively and knowingly destroy its own habitat, its own means of pro-generation, and the possibility of its own continuation? I'd say it is not, and in fact that it is a form of insanity.
Now, in light of the way I am defining mental (psycho-spiritual/emotional) health, what then is the role of psychotherapy? What is its legitimate scope? What are its legitimate questions and concerns as regarding the individual, the couple, the family, the species?
If you suffer from anxiety, for example, and you do not see yourself as a small manifest extension of a much larger and much greater system of existence, a system which has direct and inevitable effects on you, the small individual, it will be more difficult, I suggest, to 1) understand your anxiety, and to 2) do anything genuinely healing/remedial about it. If you suffer from depression, and have not been able to achieve relief through bio-chemical treatments alone, and also do not understand your depression in a cultural/experiential context, it will be more difficult (impossible?), I suggest, to 1) understand your depression, and to 2) do anything genuinely healing/remedial about it.
If your marriage is strained and struggling because you and your spouse don't seem to be able to talk to each other without slipping into another self defeating argument, and you lead your lives dedicated to a system of values and beliefs that by its nature opposes collaborative relationship, how will you be able to remedy this dysfunction?
The idea of systems in psychotherapy is nothing new. I think we have not taken this idea far enough, nor understood its implications thoroughly enough.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Who Are Your Heroes?
Of course we are motivated and inspired by those we admire most. Who are the inspirations in your life? And what is it about them that inspires you? Who are your real heroes? Who do you aspire to emulate?
The prospect of mental health, happiness, or wisdom is more or less likely depending upon the kinds of people we truly look to as models for our own lives. Some models will serve us well in this quest, and some will not. It may be obvious that having, say, the Son Of Sam, or Hitler, or Lindsay Lohan as a role model will not lead to mental health. It may be less obvious that having, say, some of our parents, our civic/political leaders, our religious leaders, or our business leaders will also not lead to mental health. Indeed, it may be shocking to consider that having some of the most respected and revered members of society as our models might contribute to mental illness, foolishness or even insanity, rather than to health.
Without looking for perfection, we might still be on solid ground in looking for some sustainable commitment to integrity, to compassion, to tolerance and to genuine caring about others and about the world at large, in our healthier heroes.
We might do well to look for heroes who have the capacity to make sacrifices in the service of humanity. We might look for heroes who even make service to humanity a real priority in their lives. When I say service to humanity, I don't mean service to a privileged few - that ever touted but highly suspect value of "enlightened self interest". I mean something more along the lines of a real consideration of what some Native American peoples are said to call the well being of the next seven generations. All of humanity, not merely me and mine.
It is my opinion, professionally and personally, that the latter possibility is much more likely to lead in the direction of health, happiness, wisdom and well being than is the former.
mdavid-lpcc.com
The prospect of mental health, happiness, or wisdom is more or less likely depending upon the kinds of people we truly look to as models for our own lives. Some models will serve us well in this quest, and some will not. It may be obvious that having, say, the Son Of Sam, or Hitler, or Lindsay Lohan as a role model will not lead to mental health. It may be less obvious that having, say, some of our parents, our civic/political leaders, our religious leaders, or our business leaders will also not lead to mental health. Indeed, it may be shocking to consider that having some of the most respected and revered members of society as our models might contribute to mental illness, foolishness or even insanity, rather than to health.
Without looking for perfection, we might still be on solid ground in looking for some sustainable commitment to integrity, to compassion, to tolerance and to genuine caring about others and about the world at large, in our healthier heroes.
We might do well to look for heroes who have the capacity to make sacrifices in the service of humanity. We might look for heroes who even make service to humanity a real priority in their lives. When I say service to humanity, I don't mean service to a privileged few - that ever touted but highly suspect value of "enlightened self interest". I mean something more along the lines of a real consideration of what some Native American peoples are said to call the well being of the next seven generations. All of humanity, not merely me and mine.
It is my opinion, professionally and personally, that the latter possibility is much more likely to lead in the direction of health, happiness, wisdom and well being than is the former.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Psychotherapy And Values, Part Two
1) Mental health, in the way I wish to explore it, is not something that is defined by a majority vote; that is, consensus does not define health, it only defines agreement (and the emperor may still, indeed, have no clothes on, regardless of his kowtowing subjects agreement to the contrary).
2) Mental health may not be a given in any set of cultural or social circumstances.
3) Mental health may exist only relative to what is True, regardless of opinion.
4) If this is so, then it becomes necessary to search for and to discover what is True, and then to align oneself with this Truth in order to become mentally healthy.
5) Since what is True is not variable from culture to culture, mental health takes on a larger meaning than previously thought.
6) It is therefore possible to be situated well within cultural norms and expectations, and at the same time to not meet criteria for mental health. Hence the state of the world.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", said Mahatma Gandhi. This is a succinct expression of the difference between consensus and health; and of the foolishness - we might even say of the insanity - of merely following the crowd, or the cultural norm, or the prevailing value, when these are contrary to Truth.
The thing about the Truth is that, while it is the same everywhere, it becomes confused with relative, local, specific cultural forms of expression, and then these forms of expression are mistaken for the Truth, defended to the death, and imposed upon others. Confusion, rather than Truth, prevails.
mdavid-lpcc.com
2) Mental health may not be a given in any set of cultural or social circumstances.
3) Mental health may exist only relative to what is True, regardless of opinion.
4) If this is so, then it becomes necessary to search for and to discover what is True, and then to align oneself with this Truth in order to become mentally healthy.
5) Since what is True is not variable from culture to culture, mental health takes on a larger meaning than previously thought.
6) It is therefore possible to be situated well within cultural norms and expectations, and at the same time to not meet criteria for mental health. Hence the state of the world.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", said Mahatma Gandhi. This is a succinct expression of the difference between consensus and health; and of the foolishness - we might even say of the insanity - of merely following the crowd, or the cultural norm, or the prevailing value, when these are contrary to Truth.
The thing about the Truth is that, while it is the same everywhere, it becomes confused with relative, local, specific cultural forms of expression, and then these forms of expression are mistaken for the Truth, defended to the death, and imposed upon others. Confusion, rather than Truth, prevails.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)