DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Opening of the Way
HTML https://openingoftheway.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: News, Politics, and General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110--------------------------------------------------
Reply to Steve, about Alice Miller and Anti-Psychotherapy
DIR By: forbitals
Date: August 8, 2019, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When Alice Miller was at her greatest, she denounced every
conceivable form of psychotherapy with zero exceptions. She
resigned from all psychoanalytic associations, and she
apologized for having led some of her readers into
psychotherapy. She said that every form of psychotherapy was
simply a denial system.
So how then does one recover their lost feelings? Well what
worked for her was water color painting. She writes about this
very well, and shows her paintings, in "Pictures of a
Childhood".
I would say that her paintings are a bit bleak, and fairly
non-descript. But she was able to understand abuses she
suffered from these.
And I also point out two additional points she makes First, she
insisted that her paintings only worked so well because she had
never studied any technique for painting. If she had studied
any technique, she insisted that her painting would have been
worthless.
Second, she explained that during her psychoanalytic training,
she underwent two complete courses of psychoanalysis. She
explained that this uncovered none of the abuses which she found
by herself by doing water color paintings. Hence, those courses
of psychoanalyses were worthless, mere denial systems.
Now as I am describing, this was the early Alice Miller, the
first 7 books.
Then she went dark for a number of years, and when she came back
she was only a pale reflection of what she had been. She had
hooked up with this J. Conrad Stettbacher, a kind of a cult
leader, and that cult based upon his own adaptation of Primal
Therapy. Seems that she was really harmed by it. It is a very
manipulative therapy, but all therapy is.
From reading Stettbacher's book, I would say that someone might
want to do something like what Stettbacher suggests by
themselves, like a kind of meditation. But I would never
suggest that anyone ever let anyone else lead them in any kind
of Regression Therapy, not Janov, not anyone.
I have done what Stettbacher suggests, by myself for years and
years, and in many variations, along with lots of journaling and
various sorts of spiritual exercises. And I am always
developing new approaches. It is a continual and life long
project, to remember the parts of myself which have been cut
off.
Now returning to Miller, I have always said, she opened doors
but she was not able to walk through them herself.
She showed how the issue is not child abuse, rather it is what
of The Family which is considered good and required, which is so
harmful. And in this sense I would say that she is more like
Foucault, than like a liberal pedagogue.
She saw and showed how bogus psychotherapy was, but she still
wanted to believe. So she went with a regression therapist and
got badly harmed. Its just like R. D. Laing before her, getting
swallowed up in regression therapy. And of course it gets into
things which are prenatal and of past lives. Totally impossible
to redress, and this is no accident.
Miller reached the point where the way forward was clearly
redress. But she never took any steps in that direction.
She asked why in artistic works Isaac is always mute. She said
that if he raised his hand against his father, "then that would
start the war we all fear."
Well that is how she thought, that was as far as she could go.
I say it was religion and experiences in the Warsaw Ghetto which
weakened her.
As she started to write again she doubled back on herself and
re-endorsed psychotherapy, as a way to get that "enlightened
witness".
But some observers have pointed out that "enlightened witness"
is probably a bad translation of her German. Some say it should
be "helping witness", as it gets translated into Spanish.
"Enlightenment" plays into the dissociation and detachment which
you find in religion and psychotherapy.
Helping Witness could mean different things, what age are they
helping you at, and with what sorts of things?
For myself I have stopped using these terms and instead
introduced my own take, seeking "Comrades". People think this
is Russian, but it actually comes from French.
People learn and grow when they place themselves at risk and
enter into real conflict. And sorry to say, a psychotherapist
is not going to be a comrade.
On her web site they associate her with "Child Abuse". I say
this is totally inaccurate. Child abuse means that which is
recognized as abuse and what the law might punish.
What she wrote about in those first 7 books was that which is
not seen at all, what is considered good and necessary.
If you had to sum up what she was about at her best, I would say
it would be:
Anti-Pedagogy, all pedagogy, coercive and liberal
Exposing the Middle-Class Family, because that is who reads and
writes the pedagogy manuals
Anti-Psychotherapy.
But most of the people who say that they follow Alice Miller
really understand very little of this. They want to make her
into something of a liberal pedagogue.
I will say that she found ways to sneak out and back in, at the
Warsaw Ghetto. She made common cause with Polish Resistance,
and she was able to bring in food.
#Post#: 111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to Steve, about Alice Miller and Anti-Psychotherapy
DIR By: forbitals
Date: August 8, 2019, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, Pictures of a Childhood was out of print for years and
years. So finally I called the publisher in NYC and got someone
who knew about it. He found one in a back room, it was dusty.
And they let me have it at retail price without sales tax. This
would have been around 1990. With her books say 6 and 7, I was
reading them right as they came out onto the store shelves. But
Pictures of a Childhood was the one I had such a hard time
getting hold of, more pictures than words.
When she went dark I was very disappointed. But then when she
started to write again, post Stettbacher, it was nothing like
she was before. I would not have read her early stuff if it was
like that.
Since Pictures of a Childhood has been reissued in paper back
from.
#Post#: 112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to Steve, about Alice Miller and Anti-Psychotherapy
DIR By: forbitals
Date: August 8, 2019, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Edited Version, not able to submit edit
When Alice Miller was at her greatest, she denounced every
conceivable form of psychotherapy, with zero exceptions. She
resigned from all psychoanalytic associations, and she
apologized for having led some of her readers into
psychotherapy. She said that every form of psychotherapy was
simply a denial system.
So how then does one recover their lost feelings? Well what
worked for her was water color painting. She writes about this
very well, and shows her paintings, in "Pictures of a
Childhood".
I would say that her paintings are a bit bleak, and fairly
non-descript. But she was able to understand abuses she
suffered from these.
And I also point out two additional points she makes First, she
insisted that her paintings only worked so well because she had
never studied any technique for painting. If she had studied
any technique, she insisted that her painting would have been
worthless.
Second, she explained that during her psychoanalytic training,
she underwent two complete courses of psychoanalysis. She
explained that this uncovered none of the abuses which she found
by herself by doing water color paintings. Hence, those courses
of psychoanalyses were worthless, mere denial systems.
Now as I am describing, this was the early Alice Miller, the
first 7 books.
Then she went dark for a number of years, and when she came back
she was only a pale reflection of what she had been. She had
hooked up with this J. Conrad Stettbacher, a kind of a cult
leader, and that cult based upon his own adaptation of Primal
Therapy. Seems that she was really harmed by it. It is a very
manipulative therapy, but all therapy is.
From reading Stettbacher's book, I would say that someone might
want to do something like what Stettbacher suggests by
themselves, like a kind of meditation. But I would never
suggest that anyone ever let anyone else lead them in any kind
of Regression Therapy, not Janov, not anyone.
I have done what Stettbacher suggests, by myself for years and
years, and in many variations, along with lots of journaling and
various sorts of spiritual exercises. And I am always
developing new approaches. It is a continual and life long
project, to remember the parts of myself which have been cut
off.
Now returning to Miller, I have always said, she opened doors
but she was not able to walk through them herself.
She showed how the issue is not child abuse, rather it is what
of The Family which is considered good and required, which is so
harmful. And in this sense I would say that she is more like
Foucault, than like a liberal pedagogue.
She saw and showed how bogus psychotherapy was, but she still
wanted to believe. So she went with a regression therapist and
got badly harmed. Its just like R. D. Laing before her, getting
swallowed up in regression therapy. And of course it gets into
things which are prenatal and of past lives. Totally impossible
to redress, and this is no accident.
Miller reached the point where the way forward was clearly
redress. But she never took any steps in that direction.
She asked why in artistic works Isaac is always mute. She said
that if he raised his hand against his father, "then that would
start the war we all fear."
Well that is how she thought, that was as far as she could go.
I say it was religion and experiences in the Warsaw Ghetto which
weakened her.
As she started to write again she doubled back on herself and
re-endorsed psychotherapy, as a way to get that "enlightened
witness".
But some observers have pointed out that "enlightened witness"
is probably a bad translation of her German. Some say it should
be like "helping witness", as it gets translated into Spanish.
"Enlightenment" plays into the dissociation and detachment which
you find in religion and psychotherapy.
Helping Witness could mean different things, what age are they
helping you at, and with what sorts of things?
For myself I have stopped using these terms and instead
introduced my own take, seeking "Comrades". People think this
is Russian, but it actually comes from French.
People learn and grow when they place themselves at risk and
enter into real conflict.
And I know this myself, having entered into contentious matters
and having seen how I was sold out as a child. No form of
therapy could ever have exposed this, and really nothing other
than intense consequential conflict could have.
The physical pain is intense, like having your bones eating away
from the inside by acid.
People who have gone thru this will fight. They know that
healing and recovery are scams. And they know that only by
fighting do they have any chance of restoring their public
honor. And when people fight well, they draw comrades. The
rest of the people are just commiserators.
And sorry to say, a psychotherapist is not going to be a
comrade.
On her web site they associate her with "Child Abuse". I say
this is totally inaccurate. Child abuse means that which is
recognized as abuse and which the law might punish.
What she wrote about in those first 7 books was that which is
not seen at all, what is considered good and necessary.
If you had to sum up what she was about at her best, I would say
it would be:
1. Anti-Pedagogy, all pedagogy, coercive and liberal
2. Exposing the Middle-Class Family, because this is who reads
and writes the pedagogy manuals
3. Anti-Psychotherapy
But most of the people who say that they follow Alice Miller
really understand very little of this. They want to make her
into something of a liberal pedagogue.
I will say that she found ways to sneak out and back in, at the
Warsaw Ghetto. She made common cause with Polish Resistance,
and she was able to bring in food.
Also, Pictures of a Childhood was out of print for years and
years. So finally I called the publisher in NYC and got someone
who knew about it. He found one in a back room, it was dusty.
And they let me have it at retail price without sales tax. This
would have been around 1990. With her books, say 6 and 7, I was
reading them right as they came out onto the store shelves. But
Pictures of a Childhood was the one I had such a hard time
getting hold of, more pictures than words.
When she went dark I was very disappointed. But then when she
started to write again, post Stettbacher, it was nothing like
she was before. I would not have read her early stuff if it was
like that.
Since, Pictures of a Childhood has been reissued in paper back
from.
#Post#: 113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to Steve, about Alice Miller and Anti-Psychotherapy
DIR By: forbitals
Date: August 8, 2019, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well we all have to decide what we do and do not accept.
Like I said, you will see experience narratives coming out of
Religion and Recovery too. They are interpretations.
In 1901 William James wrote about two distinctly different types
of religious experiences. I have written about this, and
drawing from Augustine's Confessions and from Alice Miller too.
Just because you say it is your personal experience, that does
not mean that others cannot refuse some of the contextual
elements, like the fact that it was part of psychotherapy.
I am hardly the first to challenge the legitimacy of
psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, and to say that they are
scams.
Some here defend psychiatry and drugs. Some endorse street
drugs like LSD, MDMA, Methamphetamine, and Marijuana. I've
known many who endorse Ethanol.
I do not go along with any of it. Not intending to offend, but
I really do not go along with it.
Dreyfus paper challenges the ways in which we understand what we
know and what we are, and hence it challenges Psychoanalysis and
Psychotherapy.
HTML https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj2nOGksvTjAhWRoFsKHSH2A9QQFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsophos.berkeley.edu%2Fdreyfus%2Fpdf%2FAlternative%2520(Word98).pdf&usg=AOvVaw1haiE8_qIBPWD2WrIo7-ZR
Drawing on Martin Heidegger, Dreyfus challenged the Military
Artificial Intelligence Community at MIT, and ended up leaving
for UC Berkeley where he was well received.
Drawing also on Martin Heidegger, Paul Tillich pretty much
demolished prior Christian Theology.
Psychotherapy is based on assumptions and it is based on a kind
of a Philosophy. I say that it is no longer credible, and that
it is now a kind of Witch Doctoring.
Really interesting book:
HTML https://www.amazon.com/Embodied-Mind-Cognitive-Science-Experience/dp/026252936X
Shows three circles, kind of like levels. Deals with how we
know what we know, but finally how we are what we are.
Most of what is Religion and Psychotherapy does not come off
looking very good.
Deals with Cognition, Artificial Intelligence, and
Psychotherapy.
And actually there should be a 4th circle, to include
postmodernism and poststructuralism.
And people are saying that it was Gilles Deleuze who was really
the first who was post-Heideggerian.
Totally demolishes Psychanalysis and Psychotherapy, and by using
Nietzsche it rewrites Marx and Engels.
HTML https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Oedipus-Capitalism-Schizophrenia-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143105825/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3G6EKM1BK3QB3&keywords=anti-oedipus+capitalism+and+schizophrenia&qid=1565306368&s=books&sprefix=anti-oedipus%2Cstripbooks%2C191&sr=1-1
above is extremely challenging, best book to help explain it:
HTML https://www.amazon.com/EPZ-Deleuze-Guattaris-Anti-Oedipus-Readers/dp/0826491480/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=anti-oedipus+ian+buchanan&qid=1565306429&s=books&sr=1-1
And I believe that in the later Foucault, and in some of those
who interpreted him, there will be a highly effective refutation
of all that is the Mental Health System, Psychiatry,
Psychotherapy, Recovery, and Salvation Religion, as well as of
this creation of an underclass which we are witnessing.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1