Most people go to therapy because something hurts them. In essence, they go to feel better. For many though, these improvements all but disappear within months of therapy ending. Why is this? Is therapy temporary by design. Is it that we backslide this badly; out of sight, out of mind. Or is there something more to why this happens. Something we could be doing differently. The week, in our ongoing series, Plain Talk about Talk Therapy, we're going to explore why some therapy does not last. We're also going to contrast this with therapy of the more permanent variety. Do you know what makes them different? Let's find out.

The Ten Nested Layers of Personality
Have you ever seen a Russian Nesting Doll? A Ukrainian Matryoshka? If you have, then you have witnessed one of the best hold-in-your-hand analogies for how personality is organized. A developmental fractal with ten nested layers. To be honest, the ten doll matryoshka sets can be hard to come by. I waited many months for mine as it is a one of a kind hand painted in Russia.

Why go to all this trouble to get a nested set of ten matryoshka dolls? Mainly because once you get to physically examine a ten doll set, you begin to see how perfectly it portrays the structure of human personality. Ten little versions of the same individual. Each one hiding a more personal version of itself. At least until you reach the center doll. The doll which hides nothing inside.

This then is what I've drawn in this week's diagram, two representations of this ten doll matryoshka set. On the left you'll see a cross section of the ten doll set still together, and on the right the ten dolls are all opened and apart.

The main thing to notice here is how these dolls are nested. One inside another. All the way from doll number one on the outside to doll number ten at the center. Our personalities function very similarly to this in that the parts of ourselves contained in our Outer Layers are what is furthest from our true selves. Here we feel closed and guarded, and there is much of ourselves we hold back. Our Inner Layers then are those which contain what is closest to our hearts. And to our truth. Here we feel personally open and hide almost nothing.

Know my point for showing you this ten doll nesting fractal is not to teach it all to you this week. Rather, I simply want to use it to introduce you to a couple of things about personality. One, how our wounds divide us into two kinds of people, an outer self, and an inner self. And two, how after we heal a wound, who we are on the outside matches who we are on the inside. We literally become the same person inside and out. At least in the life area wherein we just healed a wound.

How exactly does this fractal represent the way our personalities divide? To see, we'll first need to talk about the doll at which this division occurs. Doll number 6. We'll also need to talk about what happens within this doll. Why it divides us into two people. Something I call, "blocks."

What are blocks? Blocks are like holes in your ability to picture life events. Places where your visual memories jump and skip. Here, parts of your memories have literally been blocked from your conscious self. And the essence of what is blocked is that we can no longer picture something.

What does it feel like to have one of these blocks? Many times, it feels almost inconsequential, such as when we can not bring to mind some particular object, like the big black dog that used to live next door. Or the china your mother used to put out when company came.

At other times, it can feel a lot more serious, such as when whole categories of life events get blocked. Things your mind knows happened but that you just cannot picture. Things like childhood birthday parties or being weighed in elementary school.

Worse yet are the kind of blocks which impair your ability to relate to others. Things like that you cannot picture your father's eyes when he glared at you at the dinner table. Or what your mother's open mouth looked like as she yelled at the dog. What kinds of problems would these things cause? In the first case, you might over react to any man who glared at you. In the second case, you might get set off so badly by seeing your wife's mouth yelling at the kids that you might forget that in these moments, she needs your help.

In a way then, blocks are like psychological movies of our life events wherein some of the frames have been damaged. However, the thing to realize here is that "blocks" are not merely things or scenes we cannot remember. They are parts of our lives we can no longer visually access. People and events which have become unavailable to our conscious mind. Things and scenes we can no longer picture even when asked to make them up.

Why make such a big deal out of these missing frames of life? Mainly because they are the entire cause and source of our being unable to be ourselves. Thus, rather than being mere inconveniences or ordinary memory lapses, wherever we experience one of these blocks, the person we are on the outside does not match the person we are on the inside. Moreover, this holds true even for the most wise and spiritual of people. We simply cannot make up for what is missing.

How does not being ourselves feel in real life? To get an idea, try to imagine the following. Try to imagine that you have been asked by your coworkers to go to a local restaurant to pick up lunch for them. Now imagine that rather than giving you a list, they've asked you to decide what to get for them. Something you think they would all like.

Okay. Being asked to do this for others can feel a bit unnerving at times. However, in this case, imagine that you've done this before. Many, many times. Add to this that they've always loved what you've chosen. Complimented you even for how well you've done. The thing is, on this day, for some strange reason, the waiter asks you what you'd like to order without first having handed you a menu. Strange. Then, when you do ask him for a menu, the one he hands you has black paint spilled all over it. Rendering much of which is written on this menu unreadable.

Not so nice, eh? Now comes the part, though, that will give you a good idea of what it is like to have blocks. I'd like you to picture trying to order lunch off this menu. How do you think it would feel? More important, I want you to remember that what you are ordering is for other people as well?

Of course, if it was me, I'd probably request another menu. Wouldn't you. But say the waiter then told you this was the only menu he had. What would you do then?

In all likelihood, you'd do your best to piece together some kind of choices. Probably by combining the little you could read on the menu with what you could remember having ordered in the past. The thing is, this do the best you can with what you can see scenario is very much like what we do when we relive a psychological injury. The difference being of course is that instead of an unreadable menu with black paint spilled on it, in the case of psychological injuries, our minds become unreadable. Why? Because witnessing some startling life event has programmed us to go blank in this and any similar scenes.

Here then are the parts of ourselves contained in Layer Six; The Layer of Blocks. Layer 6 literally holds all the experiences wherein we suffer visual blanknesses and skips and sputters. All of which impair our ability to see parts of our inner self. Which then results in our having to bluff our way through many personally meaningful choices.

In other words, whenever we have a block and are faced with making a personally meaningful choice, we base this choice more on past experiences and logic than on what we'd really base these choices on, given we could see inside ourselves. This then results in that our outer doing and our inner being do not match. Moreover this happens even in cases wherein we intuit that what we are about to do is wrong. Why? Because without a clear picture of who we are inside, we simply choose from what we can see.

Now consider how therapy normally addresses these blocked visual abilities. How do they? They don't.

Thus, despite the fact that most good talk therapies talk about getting our outsides to match our insides, at best, all they do is make these same kinds of educated guesses. Again based on what they can see. Or else they avoid the problem entirely by telling you they have no right to tell you what to do.

The thing is, not knowing this is no one's fault. You see, prior to Emergence Personality Theory, no one has described injury as other than some variation of the two things we can see; symptoms and painful events. And yes, it is good to get rid of symptoms like depression and rage. And it is good to make sense of painful events like having been molested or having been in a car accident. Unfortunately while symptoms and painful events do have much to do with why we behave badly at times, they are both more like the stale bread on a salmonella laden egg salad sandwich. Not the worst part but certainly not the deadly part.

Now let's look at why. First, we'll need to see what symptoms and painful events have in common. Second, I'll need to show you how they are both caused by blocks.

What do symptoms and painful events have in common? Basically, just one thing. They are both the thing we can see about our injuries. What is still visible within our wounded psyches. What we can still picture in our minds.

Now contrast this with blocks, which are the parts of our injuries we cannot see. The parts which have become invisible within our wounded psyches. The parts of our symptoms and painful events we can no longer picture.

How then do these visual blank spots cause our symptoms and painful events? Simple. The blocks in Layer 6 block our needs in Layer 7. Which then cause symptoms to appear in Layer 5. And painful events to occur in Layers 4 through 1.

Now take a moment to let all this sink in. This in fact is one of the most important ideas I could ever teach you. How these visual blocks cause our symptoms and painful events. And how Layer 6 divides us into two different people, an outer self and an inner self.

To see this, let's start by looking at Layer 7. Layer 7 is where we store all of our personal needs. Our most basic desires. Our core ways of experiencing life. And normally, if we were able to see these needs, we would simply address. We are, in fact, born programmed to behave this way. Which after all is why the first thing we do as humans is to cry. We cry as our way of announcing to the world we have unmet needs.

The thing is, if we become unable to see these needs, then we cannot even cry about them let alone address them. And when a need goes unaddressed for a long, long time, symptoms appear.

Then, if these symptoms last for a long, long time, we get desperate and do desperate things. Like screaming at our children when they're just being children. Or marrying someone we know we do not love. Which then results in that we experience painful events. Things like having our children say they do not trust us when we tell them to come to us if they need to talk. Or ignoring the emptiness in a marriage until one day, we wake up divorced and devastated and wondering how it all happened.

What I'm saying is, when a block in Layer 6 blocks our ability to see a need, we have no way to know this need exists. We simply cannot see into our inner selves to see it. At some point then, even though we can't see this need, we'll know it is there, simply because we'll see the signs. Things like that we'll feel depressed and tired or lost and alone or unmotivated and unloved or filled with rage.

These kinds of visible signs are literally the symptoms of blocked needs. Or to state this idea in Emergence Personality Theory terms, blocked needs cause symptoms.

Finally, when these symptoms persist for long enough, they provoke us into doing compensatory behaviors. Ways of behaving in which we do our best to order off the menu of life without first addressing the fact that someone or something has spilled black paint all over it.

Not the best way to make meaningful life choices. Or any life choices, for that matter.

[Please note, to read the rest of this article, you'll have to click the article title below. Why? For one thing, I frequently revise these articles. For another, because these articles can be a bit long for a blog entry. Plain Talk about Talk Therapy - Week Six. ]

Have you ever been addicted to something or someone? Did you notice how this addiction changed your perception of time? In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy, we're going to look at how this feeling defines addiction. What is addiction anyway? Is it something we can avoid? Do you know? The truth is, understanding addiction is easier than anyone has ever imagined. Don't believe me? Well then let's look. Together, shall we (smile).

"Frames of Reference"
Almost everything Emergence Personality Theory posits is based on fractals. Thus the theory makes very few assumptions about human nature and none based on research statistics alone. One of the few assumptions it does make then is that what we create in our world, we create in our likeness and image. Nothing too earth shattering to accept here. We design our technology so as to make us feel good. Or at least, to fit our needs.

What is important to see here though is that since it is we who design, build, and buy this technology, it must in many ways mirror who we are. Both on the outside and on the inside. How both our bodies and minds function.

What makes this idea important? Because if this idea is true then a good way to learn about human nature is to explore the nature of what we create. How this technology functions and communicates. And how we interact with it. Especially with technologies which store and retrieve information.

Why information? Because the grand fractal of all fractals within Emergence Personality Theory is the one which empirically describes the nature of the human mind. The Formula for Human Consciousness. M = I(T). And because one of those variables stands for information.

What exactly does this little bit of algebra describe?

Basically, it describes every single experience we humans can have. And have had. And will have. No small feat to be sure.

How does it do this?

By describing and defining the relationships between Information, Meaning, and Time. The three variables within which the nature of all things human lie. And yes. I realize by describing human consciousness in just three variables, I will make many folks wonder if I've lost mind. How can anyone even know if this formula is for real?

My answer. You can know because of what it does. What does it do? When you use it to chart the visual intensity of what appears on screen of the mind, each time you do, you will find the same four three dimensional fractals hidden within the data. The same four. And only four. Or as I define fractals, the same four recognizable (visual) patterns which always repeat differently. As opposed to the holy grail of mainstream science, recognizable (numeric) patterns which always repeat the identically.

Have I lost you already? Sorry. It's just that I'm feeling a bit excited and anxious to get to what we'll be talking about here. The underlying nature of addiction itself. At the same time, I know all too well that I must first ground what I say in more than just assumptions. I need to offer empirical proof. Meaning equals Information multiplied by Time is this empirical proof. Or as I more commonly refer to it, M=I(T).

What will M=I(T) show you about addiction? Basically just this. That altering our perception of time is what we get addicted to. And that any experience which can do this to us can addict us. Anything at all really. A person. A place. A thing. It doesn't matter. If it can alter our sense of time, we can get addicted to it. Hook, line, and sinker.

Ironically, being addicted to something often makes us feel more free, when in fact, we have actually given our freedom away.

What makes us think we are more free then? The fact that addiction gives us the power to alter how we perceive time. Thus it makes us believe we can free ourselves from the burdens of life itself. This believe is so strong in us in fact that we can frequently become willing to give everything away. Money. Time. Friends. Morals. All become increasingly expendable, as we more and more defer to the exhilarating experience of being able to effect how we perceive time.

Of course, this then begs the question, can we ever actually alter time in a healthy, meaningful way? The answer? Yes. At times, we can. And I sincerely mean this. Meditation. Spiritual experiences. Seeing your children be born. However, in many instances, we can not. Or should not. Especially in times wherein we feel great pain. Even here then, addiction is never the preferred way.

Of course, my real point here is that in order to understand addiction, we must know some things about how we perceive time itself. Including how altering the way we perceive time alters our perception of everything else. Which then leads us back to my formula for perception, M=I(T).

Why call this formula the Formula for Human Consciousness and at the same time, the formula for perception? Because as far as addiction goes, these two things are the same. In fact, I define perception as the ways in which our minds experience Information, Meaning, and Time. Perception as subjective consciousness then. Consciousness as what we perceive, as opposed to some external measure of consciousness.

Scientific types would now demand I define my three variables before going on. What do I mean by Information, Meaning, and Time? Know I will be doing this shortly. The problem is, these variables cannot easily be defined. Certainly not with words alone. And in fact, any and all attempts to do so will fail as miserably as trying to define roses with words alone. Or oak leaves. Or cumulus clouds. Or roiling water. Or ocean waves.

Why can't we define these things with words alone? Because all these things are fractals. And because no fractal can be described with words alone.

How then can you define a fractal and in particular, my three terms? The answer? By defining them in relationship to other fractals. And yes, if you are worried we're about to get lost in a math or physics class, don't fret. We indeed will be focusing on the underlying nature of addiction. Where it comes from and how it functions. However, before we can I need to first take you on a bit of side trip. Nothing too difficult really. And for those who describe themselves as math phobic, please hang in there. I promise you'll come away amazed at how simple the nature of addition is. Unfortunately, in order to understand the nature of addiction, I must first talk a bit about how time works. At least, the basics of how we perceive time.

I guess the question to begin with is, can I, you, or anyone for that matter actually understand time? My answer. Yes we can. At least we can understand how we perceive time. Sound too deep? You can get it. I'm telling you. Okay, big breath now. Here we go. "Into the valley of the shadow of death rode the six hundred"; defining the big three of human perception; Information, Meaning, and Time.

[Please note, to read the rest of this article, you'll have to click the article title below. Why? For one thing, I frequently revise these articles. For another, because these articles can be a bit long for a blog entry. Plain Talk about Talk Therapy - Week Seven. ]

Although normal folks rarely refer to it this way, all of us feel "high" at times. On life. On love. On winning. On bargains. The odd thing is, despite the obvious and not so subtle differences between these events and addictions, all highs feel remarkably similar. Why bring this up? Because it turns out that our not being able to personally discern between these highs is one of the more important flaws in our nature, especially with regard to what makes us susceptible to addiction. People. Drugs. Food. Whatever. If it can get us high, we can get addicted to it. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy, we're going to explore getting high. Or as therapists call it, feeling "euphoric." Hopefully you'll come away with a good sense of what makes euphoria the main symptom of addiction. Ready?

The "High on Life" Warm Up Exercise
"My name is Steven and I am a recovering alcoholic and addict." When I first spoke those words close to twenty five years ago, the last thing I would have wanted to admit to anyone was that getting high was bad. According to my brain back then, getting high was good. And getting caught was bad. Five plus years later, fate had me working as the family therapist in an adolescent rehab, lecturing on why getting caught was good, and getting high was bad. Now it's two decades later and I am about to tell you how how getting high on life can be as addicting to some folks as getting high on drugs. Who would have thought. All this said, I need to preface what we are about to talk about with a few disclaimers. As well as with a few pointers.

One. In order for any of this to make sense, you must be able to access at least one euphoric moment. Good. Bad. It doesn't matter. You need to be able to access at least one time when you were "high" in order to personally grasp what I'm about to say.

What if you can't seem to bring anything to mind? Start with this. These moments are in you. Believe me. Even if only that you fell in love once. You see, euphoria, the technical word for getting high, is the falling part of falling in love. The walking on air, floating in the clouds, high on life feeling. Thus, falling in love more than qualifies as a personal example of euphoria.

Remember too that we can fall in love with anything or anyone; person, place, or thing. Thus your euphoric event need not be a romantic falling in love.

What other kinds of falling in love events qualify? The moment in which you first saw your child just after childbirth. Or any single vividly memorable event in which a child stole your heart. The moment you knew the brown spotted puppy was the one you were taking home. Or the first time you and this puppy fell asleep next to each other. The day you first laid eyes on that little yellow convertible you always dreamed of owning. Or the awe and wonder you felt the first time you stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon.

All these and similar falling in love events qualify as personal examples of getting high or euphoria.

Now take a moment to write down at least three sentences about your particular falling in love experience. Pay particular attention to the person, place, or thing you feel most compelled to keep looking at. Also, ask yourself which colors, sounds, faces, or details jump out at you the most? As well as which things within this scene can you not quite bring into focus. In other words, who or what in this scene remains just outside your view, this despite your knowing this person, place, or thing was present?

Done? Okay. Let's move on to number two.

Two. In order to identify with the feelings of addiction, you must be able to bring to mind at least one event wherein you yearned, pined, and longed to be with this person, place, or thing again. The day you anxiously called to see if she liked you after the first date. The night you rushed home from work so you could take your new puppy to the park. The first Sunday morning you waxed then drove your new sports car through the twists and turns of the nearby mountain roads. The hours you spent planning your return trip to the beautiful mountain lake cabin.

Now take a moment to write down at least three sentences about your particular longing to relive that falling in love experience. Again, pay particular attention to whomever or whatever you feel most drawn to look at in this scene. Which colors seem particularly bright to you? Which sounds seem vividly clear. Which minor details paint themselves into this story? And what is it you cannot quite bring into focus in this scene? Perhaps the things which happened just before and after this event. As well as the things which remain hidden just outside your mind.

Done? Okay. Let's move on to number three.

Three. I now need to ask you to remember one more kind of event. A euphoric event which ended in you feeling deflated right afterwards. For instance, the drive home after you and your new love had your first fight. The first time you took your puppy to the vet and he told you something was wrong. The first ding or dent you found in the door of your new yellow sport car. The first night back from Greece when you saw the undone laundry plied high.

Now take a moment to write down at least three sentences about this normal life is so much less than falling in love experience. This time, pay particular attention to how hard it is to feel drawn to anything in this scene. Can you see or hear anything? For instance, do the colors which seemed bright now seem dull? Do the sounds you could hear now seem far away? And what is it you cannot quite bring into focus? The things you know were right but which you would rather not see. The things which you feel urges to avoid looking at.

Okay. Now let's move on to part two. The part wherein I introduce the concept which underlies euphoria. The fractal for body / mind time difference.

[Please note, to read the rest of this article, you'll have to click the article title below. Why? For one thing, I frequently revise these articles. For another, because these articles can be a bit long for a blog entry. Plain Talk about Talk Therapy - Week Eight. ]

Have you ever been asked how your therapy is going? Did you know this is one of the more difficult questions to answer. Why? Because while you may be feeling a whole lot better, feeling better is not always proof your therapy is working. How can you know then? It turns out that to truly know, we must first face a struggle in ourselves. The struggle we feel between wanting the benefits of healing and not wanting to suffer. This then is the topic we are about to explore, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

"I Feel So Much Better"
Most people go to therapy because they want to feel better. Duh! And why shouldn't we want this. After all, feeling better is a sane, healthy, and logical goal. Unfortunately, no one can feel better without first doing the work. At least not for long anyway. Good therapists even warn us about this right up front, by saying things like that in order to feel better we're going to have to struggle a bit. You know. Dig up the past. Dredge through the present. Things like that.

So do we agree to do this? Of course we do. Or at least we mindlessly nod yea, yea, all the while secretly hoping the therapist will make this happen, if not painlessly, then at least quickly. The thing is, no therapist can bypass human nature. Thus, while it's fine to hope life may gift us at times with a bit of painless healing, for the most part, therapy happens like the old "change your oil" television commercial. You know, the one that ends with, "you can either pay me now or you can pay me later."

Voiced as advice from a therapist's seat then, this translates into, "you can either suffer now or you can suffer later." In other words, you can either do the work of healing in therapy or you can suffer through an unhealed life. Either way, Buddha was right. You will have to suffer. Like it or not.

Why all this negative sounding talk about suffering? Simply this. Talk therapy hurts. Period. Not every second, mind you. Nor every hour even. But many times, it does. Especially when you are getting close to an unhealed wound. At which point your symptoms start getting worse. And while many folks, therapists included, can at times mistake this worsening pain for that something is going wrong, the truth is, the closer you get to an injury, the more life gets tough for a while. How tough? At times, if feels like a bad dream in which you've taken a wrong turn into hell. At others, if feels like heart ache served up flambé on a flaming foo foo platter.

All kidding aside, the point I'm making is, being in talk therapy requires you to hurt at times. Sometimes, even a lot. Moreover, we can either do the best we can to endure this pain or do our best to live with an unhealed life.

What about the idea that "time heals all wounds" though? Is there nothing to this old cliché? The truth? There is no truth at all here. Nada. Nothing at all.

Why say it then if it isn't true?

Because time does tend to bury our symptoms. Which makes it appear our wounds have healed. They haven't. But we'd so like to believe they have that we just go along with this farce.

Sadly, many folks whole therapy is based in these kinds of outcomes; better ways to bury their wounds. And they do feel better. For a time any way.

So where do wounds go when time or therapy buries them? Mostly they get buried beneath layers of distancing logic and philosophical nonsense. Or beneath hundreds of bags of potato chips and couch potato numbness. Either way, when it comes to the idea that time heals all wounds, this is just an urban legend. A rural legend as well. And the real truth is, this never happens. Time does not heal wounds.

So why do we believe it does then? Because as I've said, there are many instances wherein time can act like a desert wind blowing sand over the foot prints of an injury. This happens a lot in fact. And because we see no evidence, we mistakenly believe time has healed our wounds. How nice.

Ah, were it were only so easy. Unfortunately because these symptoms are never the wounds themselves but only the evidence of our wounds, having our symptoms go away does not proof we have healed. All it really proves is that we no longer have visible symptoms.

Well if the symptoms are not the wound, then what is it?

In essence, it's a situation wherein life once startled us, and in doing so, programmed us to relive this startle each time we relive this situation. Each time then, first time and every time afterwards, being startled empties our minds and renders us blind. And scared. Or angry. And tense. And worse.

Suddenly going internally blind does tend to bring out the worst in us.

This aside, my point is, in order to heal wounds, we need to suffer a bit. And if we choose to heal in therapy, we will hurt. Not every minute mind you. Nor even in every session. But a lot more than we would probably agree to do were we to know ahead of time how bad therapy can hurt. The thing is, if we can endure this pain, it can really pay off. How? Well if it leads us to a breakthrough, then we never suffer this badly again. At least, not from this particular wound. Why not? Because a breakthrough restores a good portion of our sight. After which we never face this fear blindly again.

This in fact is how you can know if the therapy is working. You can know it is working when you make breakthroughs.

So what is a breakthrough?

The truth is, it's a lot more complicated than simply saying we finally feel better. Again, it's not simply that time has rewarded us for our suffering. Nor is it simply that our symptoms have gone away, although with breakthroughs, they do tend to decrease significantly. If not right then and there then at least within the days and weeks immediately following.

This still does not describe the nature of what happens to make these symptoms go away though. What exactly happens? To see, we first need to talk a bit about the nature of wounds. At least the part which causes symptoms to appear in us. What causes symptoms. And what are we breaking through? You're about to see.

[Please note, to read the rest of this article, you'll have to click the article title below. Why? For one thing, I frequently revise these articles. For another, because these articles can be a bit long for a blog entry. Plain Talk about Talk Therapy - Week Nine. ]

A question I have been asked many times over the years is, "what kind of therapy do you do?" In part, what makes this hard to answer is that there are so many therapies now. Why all these therapies? And is there a "special something" the good ones all have in common? As it turns out, there is. More important, this "special something" can be described with a fractal. Can you imagine? A fractal for good therapy. This then is what we are about to explore, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy. Can you guess what the "special something" is? Let's find out, shall we.

Getting Better Mileage Out of Your Suffering
I need to warn you right up front. I'll be throwing a tirade somewhere in the midst of this chapter. Thus, you'll need to do your best not to let my emotional Italian nature prevent you from seeing the good in what I'm presenting here. Especially since any and all kinds of therapists can benefit from what I'm about to show you; the Fractal for Good Therapy.

This said, in the last chapter, we discussed the idea that in order to heal in therapy, we must suffer through the healing process. Not too pleasant a thought really if you think about it.

In this chapter I'm going to show you something which can make this suffering a whole lot easier. A fractal for getting the most mileage out of the suffering you experience in therapy. As well as some simple ways in which you can learn to utilize this fractal to focus the therapy in general. Before I do though, I first need to mention a few myths about therapy. Some of which we'll discuss in depth in later chapters.

Myth Number One: It Takes A Long Time To Heal A Wound
If we define therapy as I did in chapter one; as "healing a person's inability to breath properly," then the time in which we do the actual therapy is brief. Moments only.

What makes us think it should take longer then? The idea that prior to Emergence Personality Theory, no one had empirically defined what it is we are healing let alone how these wounds occur. This is somewhat strange since we can do all this in only three sentences; [1] Wounds occur whenever we get startled while we are in a hyperaware state, [2] what being startled wounds is our ability to visualize a particular set of needs and [3], healing restores our ability to visually access these needs.

This is it then. The entire theoretical essence underlying all wounds and healing regardless of the symptoms. Unless, of course, the wound involves non repairable physical damage, such as the loss of a limb or an eye. Even here though, talk therapy has much to offer, beginning with the idea that there is always a psychological component to every wound, and that healing this component requires you help the person to have an aha with regard to visualizing some set of visually inaccessible needs. After which, the person will once again be able to breathe normally. And visualize their needs. In that particular arena of life, anyway.

What complicates this process is that we all during our lifetimes incur many wounds. Most of which happen before we have adult memory making skills. In effect, this means the majority of our wounds root into our personalities like maple tree roots into the foundations of old New England homes. Tough to get them out without taking down the whole house.

So why can't you use the Block Markers I showed you in Chapter Four to heal these wounds? Actually, you can. And healing a single wound this way should take no longer than a few hours at most. Not all in one session, mind you, but cumulatively, no more than this.

At the same time, because all symptoms thread back to multiple injuries, while it need take but a few hours to heal a single wound, healing the wounds beneath things like a serious depression can take years. Which is why even the most motivated people in the best therapies can spend years there and still not be done.

Knowing these two ideas before you start a round of therapy is important then. One, the idea that most wounds can be healed within the space of a few hours, and two, the idea that we all have many nested layers of wounds. This means, when you commit to a therapy, you commit not just to a therapist but to a life style. And while healing does indeed hurt a lot at times, healing as a way of life is a good way to live. Especially since it means you will always have more of the good in life to look forward to. True, discovering this good can feel mighty uncomfortable at times. But no where near as uncomfortable as avoiding this process.

Here then is my first point. Healing a single wound takes only a few hours. Healing a person takes a lifetime and then some.

Myth Number Two: Cognitive Therapy Is The Way to Go
Cognitive Therapies all make an assumption; that the wound is in your thinking. And yes, wounds do affect your thinking. However, as we'll discuss later in this chapter, we can know full well how we should be thinking and still be unable to live this way for long. We all know this already anyway. We just usually choose to ignore this fact.

Why does this happen to us in the first place? Because what we think is only one part of who we are. An important part, yes, but not the whole enchilada. In other words, knowing how you should live and actually being able to live that way are very different things. And thinking is but one part of this decision process.

So am I saying there is no value in Cognitive Therapies? Absolutely not. And please do take note of what I've just said to you here. In truth, no decent therapy can ignore logical inconsistencies. If it does, for the most part, you'll cripple the therapy.

The thing is, you also need to know how and when to use cognition during the healing process. Up front, as a way to better define what people are missing, yes, it's outstanding. And difficult to do without. As a healing agent though, cognition remains impotent and misleading. Why? Because the nature of wounds themselves, meaning, the nature of what we actual heal in people is their blocked abilities to picture their needs. This means, since logic by design believes only in what makes sense, logic alone can never restore a person's ability to picture. Why not? Because we already know it is illogical that we do not address these needs. And you can know this for years and still not take proper care of these needs. Thus what is missing is not good logic concerning how you care for your needs. It is that you have blocked visual abilities with regard to picturing yourself taking care of these needs.

My point here? Cognitive therapies work best for identifying what kinds of needs we have trouble visualizing. However, since all logic is based on finding patterns in what we can see, and since the essence of all wounds is that they are needs we cannot see, logic alone can never heal wounds. It can only find where they exist.

Myth Number Three: Behavioral Therapy Can Heal Peoples' Wounds
In it's heyday, Behavioral Therapies were the therapies of choice. And for some conditions, like physical rehab, they still hold great value. Using them to heal wounds of the mind though is like using paint to seal cracks in a boat hull. Not much real strength in stormy weather.

So is there no place for Behavioral Therapies in talk therapy? Again, I am not saying this. Why not? Because if peoples' behavior is so awful as to be generating an avalanche of confounding symptoms, then it's pretty hard to identify what is wrong with them. Even if you use the best of logic. In other words, if a person has too many symptoms to be able to focus in therapy, then you must first deal with these symptoms.

Case in point. Say we are talking about people caught in the undertow of something like a new divorce or a recent affair. Here, behavioral interventions are often the best place to start the therapy. In the long run, however, they are only the first step. Why? Because like cognitive therapies, behavioral therapies cannot heal what underlies these symptoms. Why not? Because they too do not address peoples' visually blocked needs. At least not in a direct and lasting way.

How about the combination of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies, the current darling of insurance companies? Is this the answer? The truth. Well think about it. While this combo does generate some great sounding treatment plans, and while these treatment plans can often be understood even by untrained clerks, do two wrongies make a rightie? Naw. Why not? Because healing still requires we restore a person's blocked visual access to their needs. Period. Thus for all the things these two therapies can do well, because neither address peoples' visually block needs, neither can actually heal wounds. At least not purposely.

So what makes us think these therapies can heal our wounds? Mostly something one of my heroes, William James, believed in. That "acting as if" can lead to healing. And while on occasion these therapies can and do lead to healing, this healing happens more by accident than by design. Something like stumbling onto the correct answer to a math problem and not knowing how you got there.

My point? Do you want to bet your suffering on the accidental healing these kinds of therapies sometimes bring you to? I don't. At the same time, they both offer much in the way of preliminary good.

Myth Number Four: Spiritual Healing is The Answer
Yes, I know. I just used the "S" word. Which means I'm opening up a whole horse belly full of worms here. And no. I'm not one of those arrogant heads-with-feet who believes there is no such thing as a spiritual life. Still, whomever created us gave us minds for a reason; to learn to heal whatever injures our ability to love each other.

So what is it that I am saying is a myth here?

I'm saying that while prayer, meditation, laying on of hands, and so on are wonderful adjuncts to talk therapy, these things alone are not enough. At least, not for us folks with an average level of faith.

Am I saying that Spiritual Therapies do not belong in talk therapy then? I am absolutely not saying this. However, I am saying that while I personally believe very much in the power of prayer and so on, I also believe a therapy should never rely on prayer alone. Not as a primary talk therapy anyway. Why not? Because we are all simultaneously spiritual beings and physical beings. Thus only the combination of body and spirit taken together as one gives us access to the true nature of our wounds.

How hard is it to do this then? Fortunately, not hard at all, as addressing these two parts of us simultaneously happens every time we visualize. More important, whenever we visualize, we gain this simultaneous access regardless of whether we believe in it or not. This access is simply built into our nature. It is the way we are designed. Good thing too. Some folks have a pretty hard time believing in things other than what they can hold in their hands. Hard evidence only for them they say. Spiritual things are too flaky to be scientific. And they are. Too flaky for science, that is.

The strange thing is, most scientific geniuses are very spiritual people. Einstein. Newton. Descartes. Stephen Hawking. To these great men, spiritual things were not flaky. They were real. Which means what exactly? Which means in order to begin to address the whole person in therapy, we need the combination of Cognitive / Behavioral / Spiritual Therapies and then some.

So is this combination the answer then? The combination of Cognitive / Behavioral / Spiritual Therapies? Not completely. You see, while all therapists wanting to be good therapists need be educated in all three, even here, a critical element is missing. What critical element? The clear and conscious ability to help people to heal their blocked visual abilities with regard to their needs. Which is where the Fractal for Good Therapy comes in. The Layer Five to Layer Seven contrast and compare.

To what am I referring? Before we look, I have one more myth to mention.

Myth Number Five: If There's No Research Behind a Therapy, It's Just Pseudoscience
[Tirade warning light on]

I have to admit, when I see someone say this stuff in print, it makes my blood boil. To what am I referring? To the idea that if the good old boys in Parrot Maker land do not see twenty years of statistically based, parrot approved research to back up a therapy, then they dismiss it as pseudoscience. That this therapy helps people is never enough.

What I'm saying is, these proponents of the Emperor's New Clothes school of science require that in order to sanction a therapy, this therapy must first have a logical proof that should work or else it is bunk. Can you imagine? That it works as a therapy is not enough!

The thing is, most of these pencil necked experts couldn't actually practice therapy with a lab rat let alone with a hurting child. Which is why, I suppose, they prefer to spend their days hiding, oops, I mean "researching" human nature from the safety of their well equipped one way glass labs, all the while dismissing what we therapists out in the field have to say as unfounded. Unless of course we back it up with two hundred pages of faceless numbers and cold hard data, all of which they say is necessary in order to "protect" folks from unscrupulous therapists.

Are there unscrupulous therapists out there? A few. Yes. But is the proof for this that a therapist uses alternative or intuitive methods? No. And while I do see the good in that therapists are being asked to explain what they do, dismissing the parts of a therapy which in essence can never be explained with hard evidence is just plain wrong. Not all parts of human nature show up in linear based research.

What's wrong with linear based research anyway? Everything. Starting with the idea that trying to fit the roundness of human nature into the square hole of research numbers is like asking an oak tree to prove itself by growing a predefined set of limbs and leaves and then dismissing it as an oak tree when it can't pass this test. This is what using statistically based research data gleaned from controlled studies about human nature is like. Repeatability. Reliability. And fitting living things like human nature into facelessly dead pages of predictably repetitive data.

The sad thing is, most people, some of them incredibly smart, accept these pronouncements of legitimacy as valid. And the pronouncements of those who do not follow this regimen as pseudoscience. All this without a shred of fractally based evidence. Why the tirade? Because some of the best therapists of all time; Carl Jung and Pierre Janet to name two, made up their therapies on the fly and only then supported what they saw with theory.

How exactly did they do this? Simple. They looked for fractal patterns in human nature and then used what they found to better help their patients, all the while refining what they did. More important, this process took place entirely in real life situations with real live people and not just in controlled, artificially inseminated lab settings.

My point? I've gleaned the fractal pattern I'm about to present from having sat with thousands of hurting people. Literally, at this point, I have sat with thousands. And like my heroes, Jung, James, Janet, Freud, Adler and so on, I base what I am about to present on that it helps people. In real life settings. And not just in pseudo real life science lab settings.

Just imagine how much might change about therapy if what I'm presenting here is true? Can you imagine? Making understandable what great therapists like Jung and Janet did. Not just in artificially controlled research settings but in real life, face to face, talk therapy settings. And before you dismiss what I've been saying about these great men, go back and read what was written about them by their adversaries. If you do, you'll find they too were called pseudoscientists by the parrot makers of their times.

On the other hand, if you dig beneath these dismissive remarks, you'll also find things like that even the folks who dismissed James and Jung sent them students and clients. Jung was in fact seen as one of the best therapists of his day. And James as one of the best teachers.

My point? Yes. Make people show you that what they do really helps people. But do this in real live, case by case tests and not in pseudo therapeutic settings from behind a one way glass or worse, from behind pages of numbers.

Okay. I'm done.
[Tirade warning light off]

Please note, to read the rest of this article, you'll have to click the article title below. Why? For one thing, I frequently revise these articles. For another, because these articles can be a bit long for a blog entry. Plain Talk about Talk Therapy - Week Ten.]