Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Razboiul Memelor

Posted: Noiembrie 25, 2010 in Uncategorized

Am sa fac paralele intre meme si schemele cognitive disfunctionale.
Unele meme ne paraziteaza. E greu sa scapi de ele. Omul tinde sa se confunde cu memele lui. Daca vrei sa i-o scoti din cap, se supara, pentru ca el crede ca ai ceva cu el. Vede insa ca nu merge ceva bine in viata sa, si nici nu stie de ce.
Altii stiu, dar tot nu pot sa si le scoata, nici daca stiu ce au si cer ajutor de la prieteni (sfaturi ca sa scape de ele).
De pilda un prieten isi dorea enorm sa fie intelept sa aiba o viata echilibrata, dar cand il apuca amokul mergea la cazino si pierdea toti banii. Stia ca va ramane flamand, ca prietena il va face cu ou si otet, ca tatal acesteia se va uita la el cu scarba, ca prietenii se vor indoi de el, dar tot mergea. I-am zis, cand mi-a cerut sfatul: „daca stii ca ai o problema, si vrei sa te vindeci de ea, ce te opreste sa o faci? ce avantaj ai din a mentine acest comportament?”
Mi-a zis: „porcului ii place in noroi, miroase urat, dar e caldut SI E AL LUI”.
Cam asa e si cu mema. Unele sunt distructive, vezi sau simti ca te duc de rapa, dar te identifici cu ele, crezi ca TU ESTI MEMELE TALE, si te lasi dus de ele unde vor ele.
Exemplu: Mema „Nu am nicio valoare, pentru ca… XYZ”. E una din memele de baza ale depresivului, ratatului, celui cu eu slab, pasivului, anxiosului, etc.

Unii depresivi se identifica asa de tare cu aceasta mema, incat se sinucid. Acolo se vede clar distructivitatea unei meme. Ea te poate aneantiza, daca nu o identifici tu pe ea, si nu o neutralizezi la timp. Dispare si mema, dar dispare si sinucigasul. Daca ii spui depresivului „e doar o schema cognitiva eronata”, el poate ca intelege si scapa de ea, poate ca intelege dar nu poate scapa de ea. In acest ultima caz, depresivul se identifica cu mema sa. Daca ar face distinctia: EU NU SUNT ACEASTA MEMA, Eu si Mema aceasta suntem 2 lucruri diferite, nu trebuia sa ma las ghidat de aceasta idee, e doar o idee, eu exist in afara ei”, atunci ar intelege ca VALOAREA LUI nu sta in XYZ.

Sa identifici schemele cognitive eronate ale omului este un principiu de baza in terapia cognitiv-comportamentala.
Apoi sa il determini pe om sa schimbe schemele eronate cu scheme de gandire corecta.

Foarte multe din aceste scheme de gandire au de a face cu logica. E trist ca nu se mai pune baza pe logica in liceele noastre. Si acolo unde se mai face logica, profii fac o varza din predare, lasandu-se dusi in jos de superficialitatea liceenilor de azi, in loc sa-i invete sa gandeasca clar, corect.

Exemple de scheme cognitive eronate, pe care cei care au facut logica serios le vor recunoaste imediat:

inferentele arbitrare – concluzia pripita, fara dovezi
abstragerea selectiva – focus doar pe unele aspecte, neglijand altele importante
suprageneralizarea – concluzii trase din examinarea unor situatii particulare, dar extinse la alte situatii, nejustificat
amplificare
minimalizare – omul depreciaza valoarea unor aspecte importante (ca depresivul nu observa lucrurile pozitive)
personalizarea – raporteaza evenimentele la persoana sa, fara justificare
catastrofarea – supraestimarea posibilitatilor negative, focus pe cel mai rau final al unei situatii
atitudinea disfunctionala – convingerea ca valoarea sa depinde de parerea altora

Sunt enorm de multe astfel de scheme disfunctionale.

O astfel de schema disfunctionala va genera GANDURI AUTOMATE (neanalizate, neconstientizate), iar acestea genereaza REACTII EMOTIONALE.

O schema negativa tinde sa se perpetueze in situatii de viata noi, desi ea nu mai e adaptata la acestea.
Ea tinde sa se automentina, prin trei mecanisme primare:
– distorsiuni cognitive
– patternuri de autoaparare
– stiluri de adaptare la schema
Aceste mecanisme de perpetuare fac ca omul sa perceapa situatiile in asa fel incat schema sa se activeze
– accepta informatiile care confirma schema
– neaga informatiile care vin in contradictie cu schema
– minimalizeaza informatii care ar putea invalida schema

Facand o analogie cu lumea biologica, nu exact la fel fac virusii care invadeaza o celula, deturnandu-i sistemele functionale in folosul lor?
Nu la fel fac parazitii care determina gazdele sa actioneze intr-un mod folositor parazitilor, dar daunator gazdei (toxoplasmoza face ca soarecele sa fie nesabuit, sa nu se mai teama de pisica, sa piarda instinctul de conservare, ca pisica sa preia parazitul iar ciclul vital al parazitului sa fie reluat – ouale sale ar muri fara asta)

Desi este o analogie, Dawkins a remarcat caracterul viral al memelor. Ele tind sa invadeze mintea umana, sa fie contagioase, sa intre in conflict unele cu altele, facand gazdele sa se lupte in razboaie pentru suprematia lor. Oamenii mor, memele prospera. Exemplu: razboaiele religoase in care mema „CATOLICISMUL trebuie sa ajunga UNIVERSAL” s-a infruntat cu mema „protestantismul e mai corect, are mai multa dreptate”. Cati dintre oamenii aceia care au murit au inteles ca au fost parazitati intr=un mod inutil si nociv, absurd?

Revenind la subiectul INCEPTIE:
un depresiv care ar intelege felul in care e parazitat de niste MEME nocive ar putea sa inceapa sa le vaneze si sa le elimine, pastrand acele meme care nu-i dauneaza, ba chiar il ajuta (simbioza).
Exemplu de meme nocive pentru depresiv, care ii distrug starea de bine, fericirea, creierul, viata, relatiile, succesul.

„Daca…. atunci…”
„O, daca…”
„Viata nu are sens”
„Nu am valoare, pentru ca…”
„Nu am avut noroc, sansa”
„Sunt urat/a, si nimeni nu ma place/vrea”
„Nu voi fi fericit niciodata”
„Cea mai buna parte a vietii tocmai s/a dus”
„TOTI oamenii sunt rai/egoisti/plictisitori/profitori”
„Dupa moarte, va fi mai bine. God va repara totul. Ne vedem de cealalta parte. Relax si verdeata vesnica”
„Ceilalti sunt de vina”

etc

Cand anume a avut loc INCEPTIA acestor meme? Cine si cum le-a inceptionat?
Ce meme pot fi puse in loc?
Cum pot fi schimbate memele negative cu memele pozitive?

In locul depresivului, putem pune anxios, hipomaniacal, fobic, timid, pasiv, agresiv, mut selectiv, suicidar, samd. In cazurile foarte grave, cand omul nu mai relationeaza cu nimeni (schizofrenicul pierdut in lumea halucinatiilor, delir, paranoia, etc) acest model nu mai merge, cred, tocmai pentru ca a schimba memele necesita
– o minte cat de cat capabila sa se autoanalizeze, fie si ghidata de altcineva
– o capacitate cat de mica de relationare, dorinta de a fi ajutat
– umilinta de a te lasa ajutat (cea mai vicleana mema e cea a MANDRIEI – care face omul sa spuna: raman cu memele mele, sunt ale mele si asta e, chiar daca pute, macar e caldut, dar nu sunt memele tale!)

E bine sa nu primesti orice mema de la altcineva (ai ajunge in situatia victimei naive mereu fraierata de manipulatori). Dar nici sa respingi toate memele nu e bine (atunci te izolezi total in mintea ta, ca o fortareata).

Dati si voi exemple de astfel de razboaie ale memelor…

Esenin

Posted: August 26, 2010 in Uncategorized

Cum s-a format Esenin: imediat dupa casatorie si dupa conceperea lui Esenin, tatal pleaca departe, pentru 5 ani. Deci in cei mai importanti ani pentru formare, tatal lipseste total. Cum putea Esenin sa se simta altfel decat abandonat?
Mama lui era aspra si rigida. Ea spunea: pe copii nu trebuie sa ii saruti decat in somn. Deci isi interzicea manifestarile firesti de exprimare a afectiunii.
Stim ca bebelusii care nu au contact fizic cu mamele, mangaieri, masaj, exprimarea afectiunii prin atingeri, devin mai expusi bolilor, mai labili fizic si psihic.
Esenin a fost crescut de fapt de bunici.

Asta aduce o mare confuzie de identitate, mai ales cand copilul se compara cu alti copii, care au parinti. De aici e posibil sa vina sentimentul de instrainare, de cazut in lumea aceasta, de dezradacinare mereu prezent in poezia lui Esenin. Dovada faptului ca nu a integrat abandonul emotional in mod corect e si faptul ca s-a sinucis la 30 de ani, fiind prea labil emotional.

Vina si Rusine: diferente

Posted: August 26, 2010 in Uncategorized

Shame or low self-esteem plays a major role in stifling our Child Within. Shame is both a feeling or emotion, and an experience that happens to the total self, which is our True Self or Child Within. Shame or low self-esteem plays a major role in stifling our Child Within. Shame is both a feeling or emotion, and an experience that happens to the total self, which is our True Self or Child Within

Growing up in a troubled or dysfunctional family is nearly always associated with shame and low self-esteem in all members of that family. Only the manifestations of shame vary among family members. We each adapt to shame in our own way. The major similarity is that nearly everyone will be co-dependent and operates primarily from their false self. We can thus describe the troubled or dysfunctional family as being shame-based.

People often confuse shame with guilt. While we feel both, there is a difference between them.
Guilt is the uncomfortable or painful feeling that results from doing something that violates or breaks a personal standard or value, or from hurting another person, or even from breaking an agreement or a law. Guilt thus concerns our behavior, feeling bad about what we have done, or about what we didn’t do that we were supposed to have done

Like most feelings, guilt can be a useful emotion to help guide us in our relationships with ourselves and with others. Guilt tells us that our conscience is functioning. People who never experience guilt or remorse after transgressions have difficulty in their lives, and are classically said to have an anti-social personality disorder.

Guilt that is useful and constructive we call ”healthy” guilt. We use this kind of guilt to live in society, to resolve our conflicts or difficulties, to correct our mistakes, or to improve our relationships. When guilt is detrimental to our serenity, our peace of mind, and our functioning including our mental, emotional and spiritual growth we call it „unhealthy” guilt. People from troubled or dysfunctional homes or environments often have a mixture of healthy and unhealthy guilt. Unhealthy guilt is usually not handled or worked through and lingers on, at times becoming psychologically and emotionally disabling. Our „responsibility” to family overcomes our responsibility to our True Self. There may also be „survivor” guilt, wherein the person feels guilty and unworthy for leaving and abandoning others in a troubled environment or surviving in life after others may have failed

Guilt can be relieved substantially by recognizing its presence and by then working it through. This means that we experience it, and discuss it with trusted and appropriate others. In its simplest resolution, we may apologize to the person whom we may have harmed or deceived, and ask their forgiveness. In its more complex forms, we may have to talk about the guilt in more depth, perhaps in group or in individual therapy.
Guilt is often easier to recognize and resolve than is shame.

Shame is the uncomfortable or painful feeling that we experience when we realize that a part of us is defective, bad, incomplete, rotten, phoney, inadequate or a failure. In contrast to guilt, where we feel bad from doing something wrong, we feel shame from being something wrong or bad. Thus guilt seems to be correctable or forgiveable, whereas there seems to be no way out of shame.

Our Child Within or True Self feels the shame and can express it, in a healthy way, to safe and supportive people. Our co-dependent or false self, on the other hand, pretends not to have the shame, and would never tell anyone about it.
We all have shame. Shame is universal to being human. If we do not work through it and then let go of it, shame tends to accumulate and burden us more and more, until we even become its victim.
In addition to feeling defective or inadequate, shame makes us believe that others can see through us, through our facade, into our defectiveness. Shame feels hopeless: that no matter what we do, we cannot correct it

We feel isolated and lonely with our shame, as though we are the only one who has the feeling.
What is more, we may say, „I’m afraid to tell you about my shame because if I do, you’ll think I’m bad, and I can’t stand hearing how bad I am. And so not only do I keep it to myself, but I often block it out or pretend that it is not there.
„I may even disguise my shame as if it were some other feeling or action and then project that onto other people.” Some of these feelings and actions that may mask our shame include:

We feel isolated and lonely with our shame, as though we are the only one who has the feeling.
What is more, we may say, „I’m afraid to tell you about my shame because if I do, you’ll think I’m bad, and I can’t stand hearing how bad I am. And so not only do I keep it to myself, but I often block it out or pretend that it is not there.
„I may even disguise my shame as if it were some other feeling or action and then project that onto other people.” Some of these feelings and actions that may mask our sha

Contempt Neglect or Withdrawal
Resentment Attack Abandonment
Rage Control Disappointment, and
Blame Perfectionism Compulsive Behavior

„And when I feel or act out any of these disguises, it serves a useful purpose to my co-dependent or false self acting as a defense against my feeling the shame. But, even though I may defend myself well against my shame, it can still be seen by others; when I hang my head, slump down, avoid eye contact or apologize for having needs and rights. I may even feel somewhat nauseated, cold, withdrawn and alienated (Fischer, 1985). But no matter how well I may defend myself and others against it, my shame will not go away unless I learn what it is, experience it and share it with safe and supportive others.”:

Charles Whitfield, Healing the inner child


de ce unii sunt slabi claditi

Posted: August 25, 2010 in Uncategorized
if the mother or other parent figure cannot provide these first few needs, the child’s physical, mental-emotional and spiritual growth would likely be stunted. One reason may be that the mother herself is so impoverished and needy that she uses her infant to satisfy her own unmet needs. This is an amazing thing about infants. They can sense that mother is needy, and can eventually detect her specific needs and begin providing them for her. Of course, this carries a major price the denial, stifling and stunting of the infant’s own True Self or Child Within. That price escalates as the child grows into an adult, with resulting physical, mental-emotional and spiritual suffering.
charles whitfield, healing the inner child

real self – fake self

Posted: August 24, 2010 in Uncategorized
Some Characteristics of the Real Self and the Co-dependent Self.
Real Self Co-Dependent Self
Authentic Self Unauthentic Self, mask
True Self False Self, persona
Genuine Ungenuine, „as-if” personality
Spontaneous Plans and plods
Expansive, loving Contracting, fearful
Giving, communicating Withholding
Accepting of self and others Envious, critical, idealized, perfectionistic
Compassionate Other-oriented, overly conforming
Loves Unconditionally Loves conditionally
Feels feelings, including appropriate, spontaneous, current anger Denies or hides feelings, including long-held anger (resentment)
Assertive Aggressive and/or passive
Intuitive Rational, logical
Child Within, Inner Child Ability to be child like Over-developed parent/adult scripts; may be childish
Needs to play and have fun Avoids play and fun
Vulnerable Pretends always to be strong
Powerful in true sense Limited power
Trusting Distrusting
Enjoys being nurtured Avoids being nurtured
Surrenders Controls, withdraws
Self-indulgent Self-righteous
Open to the unconscious Blocks unconscious material
Remembers our Oneness Forgets our Oneness; feels separate
Free to grow Tends to act out unconscious often painful patterns repeatedly
Private self Public self
Our Real Self is spontaneous, expansive, loving, giving, and communicating. Our True Self accepts ourselves and others. It feels, whether the feelings may be joyful or painful. And it expresses those feelings. Our Real Self accepts our feelings without judgment and fear, and allows them to exist as a valid way of assessing and appreciating life’s events.
Our Child Within is expressive, assertive, and creative. It can be childlike in the highest, most mature, and evolved sense of the word. It needs to play and to have fun. And yet it is vulnerable, perhaps because it is so open and trusting. It surrenders to itself, to others and ultimately to the universe. And yet it is powerful in the true sense of power. It is

healthily self-indulgent, taking pleasure in receiving and in being nurtured. It is also open to that vast and mysterious part of us that we call our unconscious. It pays attention to the messages that we receive daily from the unconscious, such as dreams, struggles and illness.
By being real, it is free to grow. And while our co-dependent self forgets, our Real Self remembers our Oneness with others and with the universe. Yet for most of us, our Real Self is also our private self. Who knows why we chose not to share? Perhaps it is a fear of being hurt or being rejected. Some have estimated that we show our True Self to others on average for only about 15 minutes each day. For whatever reasons, we tend to keep that part of us private.
When we „come from” or when we are our True Self, we feel alive. We may feel pain in the form of hurt, sadness, guilt or anger, but we nonetheless feel alive. Or we may feel joy, in the form of contentment, happiness, inspiration or even ecstasy. Overall, we tend to feel current, complete, finished, appropriate, real, whole and sane. We feel alive.
Our Child Within flows naturally from the time we are born to the time that we die and during all of our times and transitions in between. We don’t have to do anything to be our True Self. It just is. If we simply let it be, it will express itself with no particular effort on our part. Indeed, any effort is usually in denying our awareness and expression of it.
Our False or Co-dependent Self
By contrast, another part of us generally feels uncomfortable, strained, or unauthentic. I use the following terms interchangeably: false self, co-dependent self, unauthentic or public self.
Our false self is a cover-up. It is inhibited, contracting and fearful. It is our egocentric ego and super-ego, forever planning and plodding, continually selfish and withholding. It is envious, critical, idealized, blaming, shaming and perfectionistic.
Alienated from the True Self, our false self is other-oriented, i.e., focuses on what it thinks others want it to be; it is over-conforming. It gives its love only conditionally. It covers up, hides or denies feelings. Even so, it may make up false feelings, as it often does when we consistently answer a „How are you?” with a perfunctory „I’m just fine.” This quick response is often necessary or

helpful to defend against the frightening awareness of the false self, which either doesn’t know how it feels or does know and has censured these feelings as „wrong” or „bad.”
Rather than be appropriately assertive for the Real Self it is often either inappropriately aggressive and/or passive.
Our false self tends to be the „critical parent,” should we use transactional analysis script terminology. It avoids playing and having fun. It pretends to be „strong” or even „powerful.” Yet its power is only minimal or non-existent, and it is in reality unusually fearful, distrusting and destructive.
Because our co-dependent self needs to withdraw and to be in control, it sacrifices nurturing or being nurtured. It cannot surrender. It is self-righteous and attempts to block information coming from the unconscious. Even so, it tends to repeatedly act out unconscious, often painful patterns. Because it forgets our Oneness, it feels separate. It is our public self who we think others and eventually even we think we should be.
Most of the time, in the role of our false or co-dependent self, we feel uncomfortable, numb, empty or in a contrived state. We do not feel real, complete, whole or sane. At one level or another, we sense that something is wrong, something is missing.
Paradoxically, we often feel like this false self is our natural state, the way we „should be.” This could be our addiction or attachment to being that way. We become so accustomed to being our co-dependent self that our Real Self feels guilty, like something is wrong, that we shouldn’t feel real and alive. To consider changing this problem is frightening.
This false or co-dependent self appears to be universal among humans. It has been described or referred to countless times in print and in our daily lives. It has been called such diverse names as a survival tool, psychopathology, the egocentric ego and the impaired or defensive self (Masterson, 1985). It can be destructive to self, others and intimate relationships. However, it is a double-edged sword. It has some uses. But just how useful is it? And under what circumstances?

From Charles Whitfield, „Healing the Inner Child”

Exista teoria ca gelozia ar fi cauzata de reprimarea atractiei homoerotice neconstientizate. Eu cred ca numai in anumite cazuri ar fi vorba de atractie homoerotica refulata (in acele cazuri de barbati cu eu slab, ca „eternul sot” al lui Dostoievski, fascinati de masculinitatea rivalului). In alte cazuri poate fi altceva. Eu ma gandesc la o teorie. Cand un barbat se uita la un film erotic sau unul normal cu scene erotice vede un barbat si o femeie facand sex sau implicati intr-o relatie romantica. El se identifica prin imaginatie cu barbatul din scena. E un fel de posedare simbolica, la nivel cathartic. Pana aici e ok, nu apare nicio gelozie. Daca un barbat e gelos pentru ca e inselat sau i se pare ca are motive sa suspecteze asta, prin imaginatie isi creeaza un film in minte, in care apar femeia iubita si rivalul. Cu rivalul nu se poate identifica, asa cum facea usor inainte cand vedea un film erotic. Se pune insa in locul femeii, mai ales prin faptul ca a fost implicat cu ea intr-o relatie stransa, intima, si o simte jumatatea relatiei, o parte din sine, prin ganduri de genul „cum a putut, cum a facut, cum a fost in stare, ce anume a facut”. Daca se pune in locul femeii, automat va resimti acel dezgust pe care il simte orice barbat hetero puternic atras de femei la gandul ca ar fi posibil sa fie implicat intr-un act sexual homoerotic (de pilda violat in inchisoare, de o banda de interlopi, etc). Deci nu ar fi vorba de o atractie reala dar reprimata fata de acelasi sex, ci de dezgustul resimtit la imaginarea unui act sexual cu o persoana de acelasi sex.
Daca apare acest dezgust, apare si furia, apare si ura, si tristetea, competitia, compararea cu rivalul (dar ce a avut el mai bun) iar mixul geloziei e gata.
Aceasta ar explica si de ce gelozia barbatului e aproape sau total absenta cand e inselat de femeia dorita cu o femeie (daca se pune in locul femeii iubite care l-a inselat, descopera ca actul sexual imaginat este cu o femeie, ceea ce pt. el e chiar dragut).
Nici femeile nu ar fi asa geloase daca ar afla ca barbatul iubit a avut o aventura cu un alt barbat.
Acest dezgust fata de actul sexual cu o persoana de acelasi sex cred ca este innascut, o caracteristica selectata de evolutie in milioane de ani pentru a pastra atractia fata de sexul opus si implicit reproducerea genelor, se pare ca singurul lucru important in aceasta evolutie).
Homosexualii si lesbienele sunt cei care nu au acest dezust, fie ca s-au nascut fara el, din cauza biochimiei aparte, fie ca au trecut de el din cauza unor evenimente (probleme de relationare cu parintii in copilarie, dezamagiri, misoginism, mizandrism, etc).
Una din metodele terapiei gelosului sau geloasei ar fi schimbarea cognitiilor care nu functioneaza corect, respectiv decriptarea imaginatiei, a filmelor dureroase pe care si le ruleaza in minte  persoana geloasa, pentru a preveni identificarea cu personajele. Aceasta identificare nu e chiar asa ciudata pe cat pare, caci e prezenta in multe manifestari umane (fuziunea cu subiectul iubit, identificarea cu un erou de carte sau film, cu parintii, cu un model de cariera, etc)

Unii gelosi (nu toti) pot avea ca o trasatura ascunsa o nevoie mare de atentie din partea partenerului. Gelozia ar fi in acest caz o manifestare a cererii sporite de protectie, afectiune, sprijin. Eu-l gelosului ar putea fi unul caracterizat de dependenta, patetism, centrare-pe-sine. Nevoile sale de atentie nu pot fi niciodata satisfacute in totalitate. Acest tip de gelos are nevoie de iubire intr-o masura mult mai mare decat alte persoane.

Psihanalitic, aceasta carenta ar proveni din aparitia fratilor in perioada copilariei. Eu-l copilului nu face fata la rivalitatea cu fratii, pentru ca simte impartirea atentiei parintilor.

Stim ca la caini nu toti puii primesc lapte indestul, iar puii slabi care nu ajung la san vor muri. Lupta pentru existenta genereaza rivalitatea. Acest lucru e posibil sa fie inscris si in genele noastre, ca o gelozie a fratelui dat la o parte fata de fratele care a primit „sanul mai plin de lapte”, adica grija parintilor. Capacitatea parintilor de a iubi este perceputa ca limitata, iar o crestere a interesului pentru un frate e resimtita ca o scadere automata a atentiei pentru subiect. In timp, daca parintii nu rezolva acest conflict (de multe ori neexprimat clar) carenta se poate agrava.

Cel ce simte ca fratii au primit mai multa afectiune-grija din partea parintilor nu va gestiona bine aceasta frustrare. Va creste si va fi un adult mereu nesatul de atentie si protectie din partea partenerului. Poate ajunge alcoolic, pentru a-si calma angoasa. In relatii, va cere mereu reconfirmare-reasigurare-dragoste partenerului. E un teren propice pentru gelozie, caci are  un eu vulnerabil.

In cazul unui copil singur la parinti, poate fi o lipsa de interes veritabil din partea parintilor, iar copilul simte un abandon emotional, care il duce tot la problemele expuse mai sus.