This article seems destructive and cruel towards therapists and meditation leaders. However, I defend the vulnerable and the unprotected, who seek orientation and help in therapy, but end up being manipulated, repressed and massacred. This is the true cruelty. I speak on behalf of the powerless, who need an advocate, because they do not have my knowledge and eloquence to defend themselves. I do not blame the therapists and meditation leaders. They have good intentions, they don't know better. I blame philosophy and the science of psychology for failing to give them useful guidelines on how to help their clients.
I want to demonstrate, that within the framework of understanding and accepting all facets of the human psyche, most modern therapies are useful. I aspire, to foster the efforts of the therapists, by providing a few links, that are missing in their theories. I hope my work will help to avoid, that beautiful and idealistic therapeutic enterprises, like the Humaniversity, are depreciated due to a few serious, but avoidable deficiencies. I hope, they will be able to help their clients even better than they do now.
Only a few hundred years ago the catholic church knew exactly what was right and what was wrong. Those who did wrong were despised, outlawed, punished, tortured or burned alive. Healthy sexuality, clairvoyance or independent ideas that disagree with the Bible were strictly prohibited.
Freud, Reich and the advent of our modern therapies taught us to be free and to be ourselves? In the middle ages we had standards for our behaviours. Now we have overcome them? No, we just extended the limits and changed one set of standards for another.
In the middle ages we were not allowed to be too happy or too sexual. Today there are many movements that require us to be happy and sexual. A friend of mine keeps complaining that therapists go on suggesting to him he should pick up women and get laid. His pleas, that he is not interested, are to no avail. The medieval church knew, that we must not have sex. Today's therapists know that we must have intercourse. The rules just reversed. What remained constant is, that we still have rules. What hasn't changed is, that there still are authorities who are convinced, that they know what is right for us.
After this illustration of a change of standards I will show an example of how we expand the limits, thinking that this is freedom, without being aware, that we still are setting arbitrary limits. In the middle ages a married woman, who enjoyed sex with her husband, was considered not normal. Some more liberal people allow married women to feel pleasure. Some people extend the limit even further, they even allow extramarital fun. But, who accepts the woman, who thinks of sex constantly, who wants to fuck six different men every day, or who enjoys sex with animals. We go on setting limits, totally convinced that people who exceed them, are sick or sinners. Our judgment and condemnation of the woman, who likes orgies is just as ferocious as the medieval pope's wrath of the woman who appreciated sex with her husband for reasons other than procreation.
I am always surprised, how people want to justify their conceited security about what is right, and what is wrong. The pope can quote god's law, as it is written in the bible, for his defense. People nowadays hide themselves behind the moral majority, like Pontius Pilatus or the judges, who killed Socrates.
This is the same freedom the catholic church gave to Galilei: 'You are totally free to explore the laws of the universe, provided you don't find anything that contradicts the Bible'. It is the same freedom, people in the German Democratic Republic used to have: I understand perfectly well, what they mean. I know, that the You have the freedom of expression, as long as you don't disagree with the government. By now, every member of the Humaniversity will be irritated with me, will feel I am unjust. Humaniversity is a beautiful place, that helps people to find their inner strength and authority. Choosing this organization as the target of my criticism, does by no means imply, that I consider it especially bad. On the contrary, I like the place, and I regret, that it is spoiled by the flaws, that I will explain hereafter. These flaws occur everywhere
As you might have noticed by now, my primary interest is freedom and authenticity. I don't think that constantly being false is a useful tool for growth and awareness. I like to find my inner truth, discover what I really want to do. Therefore I don't like therapy groups, that are authoritarian, that oblige participants to do certain exercises. I like to be offered exercises, not to be forced.
Therefore I asked a few people of the Humaniversity staff: "What if I don't want to participate in an exercise. Is there any problem, if I just step aside?" The therapist looked at me, totally bewildered: "If you don't want to do the exercise, what are you doing here?" I tried to explain about freedom, but it was to no avail. So I decided, that groups at that place are not for me. Once, though, I participated in a festival group, which is the same thing, except that it is voluntary. I enjoyed the experience of staying a whole weekend without sleep and with little food. It was my choice. At any moment I could acted differently. But I do not agree to surrender my will and my authority on Friday, only to regain it on Monday, when I leave the Humaniversity.
"Well", somebody might interject, "I understand that you want freedom, but we must have strict rules in order to control a group situation, and in order to push people to their limits". This answer is totally different from the answer I received before, which showed total ignorance of the concept of liberty. There is an essential difference, if someone understands and values freedom and rebellion, but chooses to use an authoritarian structure, or if someone uses an authoritarian structure, but has no comprehension whatsoever for the freedom spirit of the group participants. But, let's stop gossip, and let us be precise and scientific. In order to be more clear, I need to interrupt my flow in order to introduce a few theoretical concepts.
This is a summary of the some of the principles, that I elaborate on in great detail in other books and articles of mine. My theory owes to the postulates of Voice Dialogue (Stone and Winkelman), which, in turn, was greatly inspired by the works of C. G. Jung.
Whatever we condemn, hides from us The human psyche has a manifold of SELVES, also called ENERGIES, SUBPERSONALITIES, QUALITIES or PROPERTIES. Some of them, we repress, we condemn them. We want to get rid of them. This is impossible, we cannot extinguish any energy. It does not disappear, instead it hides in the unconscious, Jung called it the shadow.
These repressed and condemned energies are also called disowned energies. In spite, or because of the repression, they actually grow, and become 'demonic'. The important statement is, that this is valid for all energies, not only for sexuality or instincts, but also for falsity and repression.
We often don't notice a disowned energy in ourselves, but immediately detect it in others (Projection). Then we try to repress the energy that we repressed in ourselves, in the other person, too.
There is an intrinsic connection between condemnation and unconsciousness. Whatever we condemn, starts hiding and turns unconscious. Almost everything that is unconscious, hides before us, because we disapprove of it, consciously or unconsciously.
Therefore, the path to consciousness is through loving acceptance of all energies. This does not mean, that we need to act out all energies. It is possible, for example, to understand and accept violence, but not to use it, and not let other people use it against us.
After these theoretical elaborations I can explain more clearly the difference between
a second-rate therapist, who does not understand freedom and rebellion, but condemns and derides them, and
a rebel like Veeresh, who, deducing from his life's story, understands and lives rebellion, but chooses to impose discipline.
It is the same difference as between
the pope, who considers sex to be sinful, and exhorts against extramarital sex, and
Osho (Rajneesh), who used to advocate free sex, but nowadays recommends moderation, not because he condemns it, but because he considers AIDS to be a menace.
Superficially, on the outside, both do the same. We must not only look at the outer appearance, but watch the inner attitude. Someone who accepts and understands opposite qualities, like sex and celibacy, or discipline and liberty, can opt for one side. Sometimes, it is even inevitable to make a choice.
The AUM meditation is being offered by the Humaniversity. It consists of 11 stages, designed to stimulate a multitude of diverse emotions or energies, induced by matching music. Its merit is the fact, that it encompasses a wide range of energies, its shortcoming is, that it rejects and disowns several qualities, the foremost of which are freedom and rebellion. It is still selective. It doesn't accept everything. It is dual, it thinks that certain energies are good and worthy of promotion, and that others, like falsehood and repression, should be extinguished.
I will outline a few of the stages of the AUM meditation, as explained in the Humaniversity magazine Freestate:
I hate you. Make fists and start screaming at each other: 'I hate you'.
I love you. When the music changes, stop screaming and start saying over and over again, from the bottom of your heart, 'I love you' to each other.
Freak out. Let your energy, your feelings or whatever you find inside, express itself through your body. Let go totally. You can scream, cry, dance, rage, beat mattresses, sing.
Crying. Allow your tears to flow. Be gentle to yourself, you can cry without apparent reason. Welcome your tears and your sadness.
I decided to try the AUM meditation, in order to have a personal experience of it. In the first phase I came across the problem of having to say: "I hate you" to someone I felt love and attraction for. I quickly deduced, that a declaration of love would not be received favourably at this moment. A truthful expression of anger towards the leaders of the performance, who commanded our feelings and supervised our words, also was not endorsed in the script. This left me with two options: direct clash with authority or falsity. Like everybody else, I opted for falsity. I made an effort to feel anger and to say: "I hate you". After a few minutes, I felt like a record player caught in a groove, monotonously repeating the same lifeless phrase. So I dared to take the liberty to modify the phrase slightly: 'Asshole, fuck off'. Being better drilled than I was, the other participants soon corrected my deviation and brought me back to mimicking correctly the required behaviour. The motto is not creativity, but breaking in.
The next stage was worse. Faking love fills me with even more disgust than faking hate. It was worth the experience, though, because it was noteworthy how easily people can be mislead. Most seemed to believe in my false declarations of love. In the laughing stage one could see the ridiculous spectacle of a bunch of people laughing hysterically, without feeling like laughing. People are so used to being false, that nobody seemed to notice the absurdity of the situation. There was only one authentic person: a woman, who made a mockery of the exercise and laughed with ostensible, demonstrative falsity, actually showing her irritation.
In the freaking out phase, I started out noisily, like any 'good' participant. Then I committed the mistake of stopping in order to feel what I really felt like doing. Immediately, one of the leaders jumped towards me, to return me to the path of obedience. There was no use arguing, so I started hitting a pillow, without ambition. The guard already was more satisfied, but pressed me to freak out more. Therefore I determined: 'If falsity is what you want, let's give you the perfect show'. I started beating the pillow with great noise and furore, hiding my delighted smile and laughter (I am so sorry, it was the right feeling, but in the wrong stage). The leader let go of me, deeply satisfied. I did the same thing everybody else did: play-acting. The only difference was, that I was fully conscious of the falsity, and the others were mostly unconscious. I want to stress the main point of my therapeutical work: acceptance of all energies, with no exception whatsoever. At that moment this meant accepting falsity, with no judgment, no condemnatory attitude whatsoever. If you stop condemning an attitude (energy), it ceases hiding from you. You become conscious of it. It stops acting unconsciously inside of you, like in the meditation leaders and many of the participants.
I must admit, though, that I still am prejudiced against falsehood. Therefore I ended up with a headache, by the time, the meditation was over. After a few hours, though, I recuperated. I most certainly will discount the Humaniversity's suggestion: 'It is best to do the meditation over a period of three months to fully experience its effect'. For heavens sake, please not, I had enough effect.
Let us analyze the excerpts from the instructions for the AUM meditation, as provided in the Humaniversity periodical "Osho Freestate", July 1989.
I hate you. Make fists and start screaming at the top of your lungs at each other: I hate you'. Move to everybody and don't stop screaming; rather let it become louder and more and more total. Scream from your belly and get more and more into what you are doing.Everybody should take a course in computer programming, because it teaches you to plan ahead for all possible events. The author just forgot to consider the eventuality, that someone might not get into what he is doing. And I am sure, he will even be judgmental about such a person, he probably thinks it is childish defiance, if someone does not want to feel what he is ordered to.
I love you. When the music changes, stop screaming and start saying over and over again, from the bottom of your heart, 'I love you' to each other. ...This is the attitude of the catholic church, who thinks it can order us to truly love God, our parents and our spouse. But people in the growth movement should know better, that one cannot boss around somebody else's bottom of the heart to feel love whenever ordered. One cannot even order the bottom of the own heart. You feel what you feel, and not what you try to feel.
Make eye contact, allow your bodies to touch, when it feels right, and allow any soft feeling to flow when it happens.This is getting a lot better: 'allow ... when it happens'. But it still omits information on what to do when it does not happen.
Again make sure to meet every participant and really feel what you are saying.Great. Feel REAL love for everyone the moment you are required to.
Freak out. Let your energy, your feelings or whatever you find inside, express itself through your body. Let go totally. You can scream, cry, dance, rage, beat mattresses, sing.What if your energy and feelings are of quietness or of thinking? Probably Veeresh himself can deal with this situation, but not the other people he taught. See my comments on Rolando Toro on page Rolando and on Watzlawick's 'be-spontaneous-paradox' on page Watzlawick. You can't let go and have the feelings you are required to have. Either you let go, and whatever wants to happen, happens. Or you make things happen, but then you don't let go.
|Humaniversity's instruction:||My comment:|
|Crying. Allow your tears to flow. Be gentle to yourself, you can cry without apparent reason. Welcome your tears and your sadness.||This is the right way to say it. Allow and welcome. I wish the meditation leaders understood these words.|
|Laughing. [...] If you have difficulty laughing without reason, start with: 'Hahaha', and likely you will crack up laughing about your serious effort. Once this well of laughter, which is always present in your belly, is open, let it flow.||This is not so bad either. It says 'let it flow'. It gives instructions on what to do, if you don't feel like laughing. But it still does not consider the possibility, for example, that just in this moment, the well of sadness, which is always present in your chest, wants to flow.|
The AUM meditation is not especially bad. It is an example of what happens in the entire therapy scene. Good intentions are destroyed by ignorance, many people feel that something is wrong, but they can't put their finger on it, they can't prove it. It took me ten years to arrive at this point. What is more important, I will introduce alternatives that can fix the dilemma. I think, the AUM meditation is a good idea, and should not be abolished. The meditation leaders just need some improvements.
I always wondered, why every founder of a therapy system thinks, that his method is a cure all. After I met a few of them, however, it became clear to me. Geniuses like Janov, Lowen, Rogers and Rolando Toro have the capacity, that I am promoting, which is profound understanding and unconditional acceptance of all energies. They chose a method, which utilizes only a few of these energies. Their followers, however, turn the technique into a dogma and reject the other energies. A bioenergetic therapist, for example, should be fully aware that he uses a system, that works with the body and strives for liberation. He should be aware, though, that the energies of mind, thinking and even of repression can not be eliminated.
I will demonstrate this by means of an example. Rolando Toro, a Chilean living in Brazil, is the founder of Biodan?, which is quite widespread in South America, and slowly expanding into Europe. Biodan? emphasizes aliveness, love and harmony with music and a large group.
His followers tend to have the kind of plastic happiness, love and harmony, which is so typical for a lot of alternative movements that emphasize harmony at the expense of repressing negative feelings. Their hidden aggressiveness surfaces, as soon as somebody does not fulfill their norms of behaviour. I was chided by group leaders for not participating in an exercise and condemned for taking a step back, when a therapist wanted to give me a hug. My misbehaviour was diagnosed as 'emotional rigidity'. This therapist never arrived at her own diagnosis, which is 'emotional tyranny'.
Once, I was lucky enough to participate in an event lead by Rolando Toro. Watch for the difference. One of his exercises suggested us to write down beautiful sentences starting with: "Love is ....". Later, we should recite or sing one of these phrases in front of the group. This day I happened to be sad and depressed. So I disobeyed the rules and wrote phrases like 'love does not exist' and 'love is only for others'. I showed this paper to Rolando and said: "Listen, I am not in the right mood, I'll leave". To my great surprise he excitedly started humming "love is only for others". He said: "But this is beautiful, just recite 'love is only for others'". The difference seems subtle, but it is essential. If you are in favour of happiness and condemn sadness, you will condemn and coerce your clients. If you are in favour of happiness, but understand and accept sadness, you will not repress and manipulate your clients.
This is the main reason, why primal therapy works with Arthur Janov, client centred therapy works with Carl Rogers, Biodan? works with Rolando Toro, and Humaniversity style therapy works with Swami Anand Veeresh. But these geniuses themselves do not know, that one of the main ingredients of their success is unconditional acceptance, they don't teach this acceptance; their followers become judgmental and false and the technique ceases to be effective. Some people (like Osho Rajneesh) claim, that love is the most important element in therapy, but they never define and explain it clearly. So these therapists go on deceiving themselves, thinking they are loving, while, in reality, they are full of judgment towards important parts of the client's psyche.
Isn't it strange, that these creative geniuses don't notice how flawed their work becomes, when others execute it? The main reason is, that their mere presence works like a catalyst. They are contagious. A few words by Arthur Janov. Rolando Toro or Swami Anand Veeresh change the whole energy of the group, even if it is the assistants who do the main work. Therefore they never witness the miserable work their apprentices do. I recommend Veeresh to watch a few AUM meditations secretly, through the keyhole. I am sure, he will notice the subtle, but decisive differences, the climate of coercion and falsity.
Therapies and philosophies are always analyzed in terms of what they do and what they favour. This approach seems obvious, but it is inadequate. It is more important to contemplate on what they disown and reject.
Boxing and Karate, for example, disown fear. Therefore, they lose many students, who are unable to overcome their fear. Many practitioners struggle all life long against their instinct of flight. Aikido, on the other hand, renounces aggression, physical violence, strength, tension and effort. For this reason, Aikido schools are full of students who make efforts to be relaxed and use psychological strength and violence against those who dare to use physical strength. Their founder, Morihei Uyeshiba, though, was a master of violent combat and physical strength. He honoured and understood these qualities, and ended up developing a martial art, that uses energies opposite to them, yielding and relaxation. I recommend to any Aikido teacher, to put a punching bag in his gym, so that those students, who did not have Uyeshibas past experience as a warrior, have a chance to make friends with these qualities.
Modern therapies have good intentions. They are against repression, war and hate. They don't notice, though, that they wage war against war, they try to repress repression. They are just as judgmental as their predecessors. I personally prefer rednecks and cowboys to growth movement people, because at least the former do not pretend to be accepting and tolerant.
Rebellious and alternative people soon institute a new dictatorship with different rules. I don't even want to blame the therapists. They are well meaning. They just don't know better. I do blame the science of psychology, because they are full of useless and confusing theories and fail to give beneficial guidelines. Good intentions without knowledge is not enough. Did you know, that many medieval priests and inquisitors also had good intentions? They wanted to promote the kingdom of god. They tortured witches to help them to return to the path of virtue and to save their souls. The popes were not all sadists, many of them had sincere intentions. They did not know better.
Todays therapists try to exterminate falsity, violence, tyranny and deadness with the same arrogance and conviction as their medieval forefathers, who tried to exterminate aliveness, rebellion, clairvoyance and scientific progress. And they are equally convinced that they are committing good deeds. With my writings and theories, I want to remedy this lack of clarity and knowledge. I want to show a philosophy that does not destroy anything, not even Satan. For this purpose, I will study some of the gods and a few of the taboos of modern therapies.
Isn't it strange? The modern growth movement is against falsity. Why then do falsehoods, like fake hugs and plastic smiles pervade the alternative scene. This happens exactly because they disown falsity.
Any energy (quality, subpersonality, archetype) that you try to repress, will
fight back. No energy whatsoever can be extinguished. They do not disappear,
instead they hide in the unconscious, acting without our knowledge. Only when we
and our therapists start accepting them, will they come out in the open.
I will show by means of an example, how Voice Dialogue deals with an insincere person.
(with a grin) I am so angry with my boyfriend, I could punch him. (She stops for a moment) I hate this false smile of mine, when I am actually angry.
As you notice, there is a part in you, that makes you smile when you are angry. You don't like this side, you want to get rid of it. You disown it. Let us see, if you can meet this side and understand it. Please, I want to talk to the part of Cathy that smiles, when she is angry. (Cathy moves over to another pillow, to symbolize, that a voice is speaking). Please tell me a few more stories that make Cathy angry. Please do so with a beautiful smile.
(confused) I hate her roommates.
Please feel free to smile. For a change, you will not be condemned for your smile. On the contrary, I ask you to show me your most beautiful smile.
I hate this falsehood. I would like to tell him how disgusting he is (her eyes start shining, she becomes alive and breathes deeply. But soon, she turns sad and gloomy). But I would be kicked out of the apartment. [Here, again, the opposite voice comes in. This is typical. Two opposite energies locked into a constant internal fight, repressing and annihilating each other. Authentic anger is beautiful. But sometimes, a false and calculating smile is essential in order not to become a martyr.]
[For a while, we go on talking to the authentic voice. Then we go back to the false smile.]
So, if it were not for you, Cathy would be sleeping on a park bench. But because of your self control, she lives in an apartment.
Right. Everybody loves me. I seduce everybody.
I bet, that five years ago, before Cathy started this therapy trip, you were even more successful. These humanistic therapists probably don't cherish you so much.
This is true. Recently Cathy tries to get rid of me. But I won't abandon her, I'll go on helping her, no matter if she wants it or not. The owner of the apartment is a therapist. Once she was authentic with him and yelled at him. She almost was kicked out. These stories about wanting the other to be authentic is just a lot of bullshit. They just say this, they don't mean it.
You certainly are realistic. If you were not here to help her, she would be in deep trouble.
In my therapy group, too, everybody loves me. It is funny: first I fake a few smiles. Because of those smiles everybody loves her, and they treat her so nicely and affectionately, that soon the false smile turns authentic.
This is a very important observation. Unfortunately, we do not have more time, therefore I must ask you to return to Cathy's 'aware ego'.
(with a smile) Sure, I hate to stop, but I'll do anything you want (she moves back to the first pillow, the one she started the session from).
Cathy, you saw these two energies (voices) of yours. Both are beautiful, both are useful, both are needed in your life. But they act clandestinely, automatically, without your knowledge. You can become conscious of them and use them consciously. When you are false, do it consciously, knowing that it will prevent true contact. And when you are authentic, do it consciously, knowing that it can make you unpopular.
Most therapists have this strange idea, that there is a right energy (behaviour) and a wrong one. But in nature an ideal solution does not exist. Nature did not invent the ideal animal, but it produced lions and antelopes, elephants and mice, cogs and cockroaches. Even the most disgusting creatures have their reason to exist.
A joke, to end the session: The little cockroach saw a man stepping on a fellow cockroach. She asked her father: "Why are we not as strong as man?" Replied the father: "Wait until the next nuclear war. We will be the survivors."
This session was on a verbal level, but the concept con be used for experiential type of work. The essence of the work is the loving acceptance of everything, in our case acceptance of authenticity and falsehood. I will show a few exercises, in order to bring the rejected and disowned energy of falsehood into groups.
Amazingly, nobody manages to generalize the law:
You cannot repress any energy forever.
Not even falseness.
We were educated by parents, who, in the event of a conflict, always were right. We go on, to a school that always was right. Whenever we felt bad, it could only be our fault.
Nowadays, we arrived at modern therapy institutes, like the Humaniversity. Finally, our therapist concedes, that the feelings we had in the past, about our parents and our schools, were correct and justified. What a beautiful progress. Everything changed. Everything? Before you read the next paragraph, does anybody solve this enigma: What is it, that did not change?
When we feel bad in therapy, or in an AUM meditation, it is always our fault. It is never the leader's fault. The exercise is never badly planned. What remained the same is that now we are wrong, and the authority is right.
These topics are dealt with excellently in all books by Alice Miller, like
For Your Own Good. Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence.
Thou Shalt not Be Aware: society's betrayal of the child
But, unlike Alice Miller, who has an intuitive understanding, but no definite solution, I also have a simple and universal theory, that shows the path towards a solution.
My readers will be divided in two groups.
Some will think that I am a grumbler and complainer, that I need psychological treatment. They want to repress my feelings, and are convinced that they are right and I am wrong.
Some will agree with me and seek to get rid of the therapist's dictatorial complacency. This is well intended, but seemingly it never works. I am sure, Veeresh tried this method.
There is a third way: don't try to repress anything, don't try to get rid of anything. Accept all energies. Accept, that everybody has all kind of diverse qualities. The therapists are identified with humbleness. Therefore their disowned megalomaniac overpowers them. I repeat the law:
Whatever you disown (try to repress) will dominate you through the unconscious.
Accept, that you have a side, that is like our beloved pope:
I am right, I found the truth and whoever contradicts me is a sick heretic.
Only if you accept your arrogance, can you find true humbleness.
This topic is closely related to the next one.
One of the main principles of humanistic psychology is the belief in the individual and his dignity. This, too, is a beautiful concept, as long as it is only positive. We get into trouble, though, if it is a negative concept, that tries to destroy and extinguish the opposite qualities, like domination and tyranny. I hope I don't bore you, if I repeat the rule again:
Every energy that you reject, hides in the unconscious. It becomes bigger and acts without you being aware of it.
This is why the loving medieval catholic church became a bunch of murderers, and it is also why the respectful and freedom-loving Humaniversity is full of little tyrants.
The solution, again, is very simple: accept and love your inner tyrant.
This could be done in the setting of a Voice Dialogue session. As an alternative, I will suggest a few practical exercises.
Exercises to become acquainted with the energy of domination and tyranny. Master and slave: The master tells the slave exactly, how he has to move. Advanced tyrants can also order what the other has to feel. For example: Give me a hug and smile. Tell me that you love to give me a hug. Love me from the bottom of your heart. Does that exercise remind you of something. Think first, before you read the Footnote1 . I want to give people the chance to enjoy their will to dominate, without them needing to hide behind excuses. This will become clearer in the second exercise. I call it
Invading the other's privacy: Chose a person you want to get close to, but who does not like you. Hug and kiss him. Ignore any negative feedback the other gives to you Footnote2.
You think, this exercise is cruel. Well, it happens every day, but in a subtle and hidden manner. John hugs Mary. Mary doesn't like it. She freezes a little. Any sensitive person can notice it. She does not object aloud, though, because, as an advanced new age therapy freak, she should have all her chakras wide open, especially the heart and the sexual ones.
I want people to stop hiding behind excuses and ideologies: "You should be sexually open and enjoy my touch". They should be able to admit their selfishness: "I want to grab that woman (or man), no matter if she likes it or not". We all have this side, and perform major contortions to camouflage it.
By the way, men need this attitude in daily life. The way women are trained to say no when they mean yes, a man who is too respectful of the other person's 'no' will remain alone forever.
Do you still think this is immoral? Well, prove to me scientifically, why it is wrong. If you have difficulties, follow my hint Footnote3.
As long as you continue condemning the tyrant, nobody will admit his domination side.
To finish this subchapter, I will demonstrate the interplay of the inner voices of a therapist, who got irritated, because I dared to do an exercise different from the way he prescribed it, and failed to do a few other ones altogether.
Everything is all right. There is no problem whatsoever. The session is running all right, and if Mario skips some exercises, that is no complication at all.
How can I find out what I want, if I am required to want, what the leader thinks I should want? Paul Watzlawick created the term 'be spontaneous paradox'. When someone orders me to be spontaneous, but has already fixed ideas, about how my spontaneity will be like, then I anticipate the behaviour he expects. I do, what he thinks is spontaneous, and he will be satisfied.
Of course, I know, many people need guidance, some even desire to be lead. This is OK. I am not against any quality (energy). I am only pointing out, that the quality of liberty and rebellion is missing, and that there should be a space for it also. I am saying also, not exclusively.
Every member of the group should, sometimes, disobey and do an exercise in a different or wrong way, on purpose. This behaviour must be approved and valued by the group and the leader.
The timing must be free, rebellion can't be prescribed to happen at a predetermined moment. There must even be the option to rebel against rebellion and remain obedient all the time.
It is true, that authentic freedom and rebellion do not require anybody's approval. However, doing these exercises the way I do them, against the therapist and condemned by the entire group, is not the easy way to develop my own authority.
I am fully aware, that there is always the danger of total anarchy. I know that many people need to be pushed, in order to grow. I realize, that sometimes it is inevitable to sacrifice some individuality, to make a group process work. I only want to remind that there do exist two sides, because only he who comprehends both polarities, tyranny and liberty, can make a conscious choice. The revolutionary idea of Voice Dialogue is the integration of opposites, without suggesting an ideal solution. The world is so complex, that there is no such thing as an ideal solution.
Neill, the author of the world famous book 'Summerhill, conceded to the students of his school unconditional freedom to decide, which classes they wanted to attend. He himself became worried, because a few students did not visit a single class in two years. Suddenly one of them determined he wanted to pass a college entrance exam. He decided to attend school, and within three weeks he learned everything the others had learned in two years. Conclusion: What you do out of your own will, can be 1000 times more efficient than what you do by coercion.
All modern therapies have a obsession with life and aliveness. Freud already was viciously attacked for postulating a death drive. I admit, that I myself am prejudiced against death and deadness. I do agree, that therapy should primarily teach life and not death. But:
The human psyche incorporates all energies (archetypes, qualities, gods).
This includes death and destruction. I will give a few examples.
It is a question of freedom and of principles. The child does not want to eat spinach, he defends his liberty, he does not care if spinach is healthy. Somebody wants to be sad, depressed or lifeless. He does not want to be coerced to be celebrating, dancing and alive. Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) said: "I'd rather go to hell, out of my own free will, than be required to go to heaven. If somebody wants to force me to go to heaven, I most definitely will go to hell".
We have no choice. Whether we like it or not, one day we will be destroyed or killed. A patient with terminal cancer will only find peace, if he made friends with death and destruction. Stephen Levine Footnote4 writes extensively about this subject. But even before this, we have to face slow destruction: we age, our sexuality diminishes, our body decays. We should master both options: fighting against death and disease, and accepting it Footnote5.
In Germany, a woman had to face court for being too loving. In order to avoid running over a cat, she swerved onto the opposite lane, in a blind curve. She collided with an oncoming car, killing two people and injuring one. Sometimes, if we are unable to destroy, we become dangerous.
I am not against an attitude in favour of aliveness. I just repeat again and again, that we cannot escape from any energy, from no god. It is legitimate, to be in favour of aliveness. Rejection of deadness and destruction, though, poisons and destroys aliveness by causing fake happiness, false smiles and plastic hugs, as described in this article.
We should not be robots, who blindly use only one type of behaviour.
Sexuality has as its opposite the celibate, the monk or nun. Sensibility has as its opposite insensibility. What does insensibility serve for? For tolerating the dentist, for winning boxing matches, and for not noticing the tyranny and insensibility of our parents, our therapists and our AUM meditation leaders. The insensitive does not suffer, the feeling person suffers twice: first, for sensing the bad treatment he receives, and second because he is punished for seeing, what must not be seen, and for complaining.
Picture: Blaming the victim ( Alice Miller) (see page named a book after this: "Thou Shalt not Be Aware". She calls this phenomenon of ignoring the complaints and getting irritated with the complainer 'blaming the victim'. She describes, how the denial of hurt and injustice cause the deepest hurt and neuroses. Not only parents act like this, but also lovers, therapists and AUM meditation leaders. I hope, my work can help to make people more conscious of this, and thus make them cause less suffering.
Yes, it reminds of the second phase of the AUM meditation. Unfortunately, this exercise is not offered to beginners. Only those, who graduated from a meditation leader course, are entitled to enjoy playing 'master and slave'.
This needs a few practical rules, in order to avoid participants killing or raping each other.
Use the Bible. Or make an opinion poll with the moral majority.
Stephen Levine: "Healing into Life and Death", and "Who Dies"
See Thorwald Dethlefsen: "Krankheit als Weg" (Disease as a Path for Growth)
[ cheap international phone
rates] [ Interesting stuff at a3.com] [ Cheap long distance] [ long distance,callback] [ billig telefonieren] [mailto:email@example.com] [ visit the Heal Normality Message Board}
In New York it is now Wednesday, 27-Dec-2000 02:58:44 EST.
humanive.htm was last modified at Monday, 18-Dec-2000 17:29:32 EST.
You are visitor no. 708 since March 25, 1998