Persuasion, Counseling and Therapy

26 Nov 2001

In response to an essay entitled:  Esoteric Principles of Persuasion

_____________________

Dear Red [the author of the essay], It is indeed interesting the way that you break things down. If you take the cool koan that I spent most of my time with yesterday (Thank you, Yogi Tea, for putting this lovely phrase on my teabag) "The Other is You", you find that we are always trying to convince ourselves. Or, ourselves via the vehicle of the Other.

Working as a therapist in my past, I can surely say that this was the case. Gratitude to the Lord of the Universe for such lessons I was given, and to those folks I was supposedly "helping" and "persuading". Not everyone is going to be inspired to bail out of the helping professions as I was, or turn their assumptions about the entire process inside out. For instance, what if, instead of the "therapist" being in charge of the session, the "client" was?

L.

____________________

I wanted to respond to this, because as I was finishing up the article last night, this very thought occurred to me, but regarding the persuasive situation of "seduction". You think you're the fisherman, and then you find out that you're the fish! How delightful! :-)

So, I agree with you completely:

As you entrance, so you become entranced. 
As you persuade, so you become persuaded. 
As you seduce, so you become seduced. 
The trickster always ends up tricking himself. 
As you DO, so are you DONE. 
The paradox of Doing Vs. Not Doing. etc...

How could it be otherwise, if the "other" and "you" are actually ONE. If the exchange was only one-way, we'd feel cheated. I suspect that those who are effective at persuasion, are such because they've discovered that in helping others, they're actually helping themselves too. Their sense of "Self" has expanded to include others because they've experienced the feedback or consequences.

So, indeed the situation is not just "one-way". There is a synergy which takes place between your and the other persons projective and receptive capacities, back and forth.

In rock music, you often hear of the performers stating that the "feed" off the audience's energy, pushing them to perform higher.

In love making, who wants to make love to a rag doll? Most of the pleasure is in experiencing the give-and-take of energy back and forth.

In counseling, the counselor must RESPOND (K9) to the client's words, body language, and energy - so there's a definite feedback loop going on. If the counselor is not present with the client and responding, then one might as well have the client listen to a tape instead.

RL

____________________

Thought stimulated by "the Other is You." The teacher/therapist and the student, under the aegis of the One, responding to the stimulation of each to extend consciousness. Two aspects of the same organism, being moved to realization of that Oneness through their interaction. JN

____________________

Yes, and "What am I trying to get across to myself in the guise of the Other?" and how better to learn to love my brother as myself. Those are the three most poignant ones so far. love to you and to all the other pieces of myself, L.

____________________

___RED_LION___
In counseling, the counselor must RESPOND (K9) to the client's words, body language, and energy - so there's a definite feedback loop going on. If the counselor is not present with the client and responding, then one might as well have the client listen to a tape instead.

___L___
Dear Red, In some schools of counseling, the councilor actually does not respond in any way, shape, or form, to the client's behaviors, words, etc. I can think of 2 schools in particular who practice this detached witness type of presence.

I remember once when a master therapist of one such school did a demonstration at my doctoral school for the class with me. His presence, in the non-responsive manner, was not something that I had predicted he'd be doing. I didn't know the "rules of the game", either.

I found the non-responsive but witnessing experience to be heavily ego threatening; the mirror was so awfully silent and CLEAR to me, that it was almost more than I could bear. All of my machinations were painfully obvious to me. I felt turned inside out; naked and un-hidden in front of everyone there.

Unfortunately, this was long ago, and I still had much self-shame and defensiveness to my personality, so I was unable at the moment to use the clarity that he brought to me, use it right then and there. Later I saw this to be one of the most valuable events in my "therapeutic explorations" of myself.

I bring this up because I wish to persuade you ;-) not to assume too quickly how a therapist/client relationship should be structured, or what a counselor "must do". There are a few individuals who are masters of the art of healing. I could say more about how this ability is gained, but that would be another story.* And it does not come from school. For every master there are 1000's of technicians applying techniques, with varying degrees of success.

*Anyone with a burning desire to be a healer will sooner or later be drawn to this "training" method. My best to you in your creative pursuits. L.

____________________

Yes, wonderful example.

I would suggest that your master counselor was still responding. Being a perfectly silent mirror so that another can see their own posturing IS responding to them. It IS and act of service.

RL

____________________

Dear Red, 
What I wish to point out about the healing process is the artificial assumption that the "work" is performed by the healer/counselor. It does not matter what the counselor "does". This will probably make my friends in the "helping" professions feel insulted. They spent a lot of time coming under the spell of the institutions that make their money taking away a person's belief in the power of the Self to heal itself. They even bought into the idea that they had to go to school to learn this skill that doesn't exist.

You can say "but therapists harm their clients sometimes by being icky people", and I would take the flak for it and say "think again". Case tells us again and again, "of myself I do nothing". A good "therapist" or "healer" allows the healing power of the cosmos to flow through them to wherever it needs to go - period.

Not to brag, but I had clients that got better "overnight" from very bad conditions. And I can truly say that I followed no preconceived plan of treatment, and probably would have been bounced on my ear if my supervisors knew what I'd done (when I had a supervisor, I was more constrained than when I worked on my own). And I can truly say that "of myself, I did nothing". When i was not in this frame of mind, I was constantly reaching into my bag of tricks or putting my own issues and beliefs onto the other person - not a nice thing to do to someone who's already confused, but that's what you're taught to do in therapy. My results were equally embarrassing.

My desire to be a "healer" culminated with getting a really good experience to enable me to satisfy that desire. You could put it along the lines of "physician, heal thyself". there is no mechanical process that, once charted, will guarantee the outcome. It is a matter of Grace. Relatively speaking.

L.

____________________

I was going to avoid this whole thread but I can't. L., your remarks on therapy are utter hogwash. Yes, it is the vital force that heals. But the healer, through whom the quintessence flows, plays a part also. This has been known since the days of Paracelsus at least; I'd have to go back and look at Galen but he probably knew it also. Besides that, there is definitely skill involved. I don't know how you practiced counseling, but I do a lot more than just listen. Besides that, I listen differently. And I am not referring to the technique called Active Listening.

I knew a lot more about the healing process when I been practicing for five years than when I had been practicing for two. I knew more at 15 than at 10. And I know more at 25 than at 20. I wonder, what is your knowledge and experience base to make the statements that you're making here? You don't need to answer that, it's a rhetorical question.

I was not taught to project my own beliefs and values on to the client. I was taught to recognize my own beliefs and values, sort out the counter-transference, and use that wonderful information for the client's benefit.

I wish to say, without prejudice or rancor, that if this was your viewpoint about the practice you were engaged in, then your decision to depart the profession was one of great integrity. Nonetheless, it is an idiosyncratic viewpoint, and while some of the criticisms that you make about people who practice techniques rather than truly engaging with their patients are accurate, on the whole you are very far off the mark in your understanding of what therapy is about.

Bruce

____________________

But if, in somebody's experience, psychiatrists have hurt the world, possibly more than any other group of people, then being off the mark in understanding what therapy is "really" about could be good. It could fight the dominant powers of the earth, the psychologists and the psychiatrists, who are the source of those hurting experiences. For example, what if:

Then, perhaps, it would be a GOOD idea to not understand the "true" meaning of therapy, so we could have some modicum of intelligence and personality left over. So we could have some individualism and love and respect for each other. So we could seek happiness in a world where only power is rewarded and happiness is difficult to find?

Perhaps a lot less persuasion would be needed if we were free from therapy?

Perhaps the only persuasion we should do is that which we absolutely feel will help the other?

But how can we certify that it will actually help the other? Especially if we are certifiable?

Mike

____________________

Mike, I can't hide anything from your scintillating intellectual puzzle solver. I hope that you will let this idea ferment, even deeper. Please read my reply carefully to Bruce, I feel you are soon for the same white van with a red cross that took me away. love your sister, L.

____________________

Hi L.,

It is likely the case we are playing the "It is and it isn't" game, but here goes anyway . . .

> It does not matter what the counselor "does".

I realize that each person has the power to heal themselves, but I don't see how that makes what the counselor does irrelevant in all cases. People are working with various realizations of their own nature. There are those who are currently working with the view that 'other people' can help them. It is within this context that counseling can be of value - at least until the patient realizes they are 'in charge'.

Could your position be restated as: 

For those who affirm the verse, "only say the word and I shall be healed", saying 'it is done' can be enough.

For those who wish to have 'a process' through which they pass before they believe healing can take place, some therapy, tools or tricks may be helpful in releasing their healing power from its bondage.

> person's belief in the power of the Self to heal itself.

The Self does heal itself, and often that involves someone in a 'helping' profession. The point could be made that 'it is better' to heal our vehicles directly without 'outside' assistance. (Outside in this case being outside the current realization of the sense of self of a center of expression).

I acknowledge I have looked toward that ideal as well as others like dissolution and creation of a physical body at will among others. Until such time as the knowledge and skill to do so is manifested through the vehicle I am writing to you through, I do look to the 'outside' for help in certain areas of my development. I have received such help and appreciate it was there and will continue to be until I am able to see myself in a new way.

A Fool

____________________

Dear All, Fool especially, 

This is very long, and I won't be offended if anyone chooses to hit delete or not read. This is a re-iteration of my thoughts on the ideas behind "healing" professions. It comes out of Fool's statements to me, which I answered directly, but I wanted to put this out for thought, as well.

I think that between you (fool) and Mike you have a closer view to my concerns about the premises or assumptions embedded in the "therapeutic dance" between healer and healee.

Mike was able to express some of the outer forms of how these assumptions can be misused. For clarity, I'll say that I don't believe that the idea of skewing the population matrix into "everyone into social normal" is healthy, or desirable.

I look at humanity as a mass evolutionary project by the One Life. Each individual person is designed to express genetically, and otherwise, a particular piece of the cosmic puzzle. I see tampering with this expression, with the embedded assumption that people should conform to some "idealized" view of normalcy to be itself resting on an assumption.

I have often done a demonstration for people that I'll describe here and now. Take some salt or sugar, and dump it out of a container - about a cupful - sand works too - onto a flat surface. You'll notice that it forms the shape of a mound. If you think of the pointy peak as the "standard 67% or so of the bell curve" and look at the outliers as the "not part of the standard deviation". Please forgive me, folks like Mike if I'm botching my statistical terminology. I haven't had to do statistical analysis for many years, and I just want to get the point across, not be correct in terms.

OK, now that you have this nice mound, start taking pieces from the sides away. What happens? You could say, and the "could" is part of your comment of "it is and it isn't" that the shape of the standard portion of the curve - the +/- 1 std deviation (the moundy part) is CREATED by the outliers.

Now, this is tremendously reversed from the "normal" viewpoint of looking at this mound of grains of stuff. The "non-idiosyncratic" viewpoint is that the "normal portion" of the curve is made up of grains which accrete together because they cause - in their own non-connected way - this distribution.

The distribution is a wholism in and of itself. Any tampering with it will skew it.

I see the human race - Adam Kadmon - as the project. It is the evolution of the mind of God which exists in each and every one of those grains of sand that I care about. I believe (here is a value judgement that flies in the face of the tenets of "helping people be normal", "helping them find satisfaction inside the dominant paradigm") that the experiences which are outside the boundaries of the standard are every bit as important to the experience of the One Life as the "standard Ones".

There is a fundamental assumption as root here - that we should engage individuals who are "outliers" to become part of the normal structure. I find this assumption HORRIBLY FLAWED. The Flaw is that as a society, we do not see that every member of our social sand-pile is entitled to a life of dignity and respect, a place in the Sun - and there is a truth to that - they have a place in the Sun.

Mike made a post that was focused very passionately on emphasizing the evil we do in the name of good when we work from the fundamental assumption that we should start messing with individual aspects of the distribution in the name of "helping them". That posture is based on the assumption that, rather than create a society where everyone has a place, we should work for the good of the "majority".

If you take this idea and compare it to Case's work on the delusions that are embedded in Mass consciousness, you come to some interesting re-framings of beliefs, perhaps.

It was not even 100 years ago that individuals who were "retarded" or "mentally ill" were sterilized in the USofA. Those individuals, whose genetic structure is part of Adam Kadmon, was erased from the gene pool, for the sake of "public" health, "social welfare".

The "war", the "good fight" that we are fighting right now, boils down to nothing other than the effects of operating from a sense of "It's OK for there to be peace in one quarter of the world, at the expense of the other 3/4's". Now I know that that is a incendiary statement, along with this plea to re-examine the seriously deep assumptions behind our social "treatment" of the "outliers".  But you can read Case, and see that his viewpoint is pretty strong on this point. I'll direct you to your lessons, and to the TIRO.

Until and unless we are able to operate truly from the standpoint that every expression of the One Life has dignity, and equal value in the Grand Design, we will not build Adam Kadmon. Until and unless you can upset your applecart and give all your possessions, all your glory, all your love, all your devotion, to the others around you, you will not build the Stone.

So, does this make sense? This is the challenge that I throw into the assumption that we should persuade another; that we should attempt to "modify" the experience of another. I am not into bonzai.

Let me be even more specific. Please forgive me Bruce if this offends you, I truly don't wish to, but I won't change my opinion of this process to please you (Angela is incorrect that I am pleading for love or attention here. I am pleading for those whom I know are not allowed to get out of the bonzai they're in). Here is the specific's for why I will not support or engage in "therapy".

To engage in the position of a therapist is to subtly make the argument that there is something that you could do, or not do, that would change the outcome of the individual seated (or whatever) with you. To take the position that there is anything other than a mirroring, love-as-reflection happening going on, which the One Life will use however it chooses - to be attached to the results - is to proceed to do something that further "teaches" or "suggests" that there is a power-inequity in this situation.

This subtle teaching is reinforced throughout our world in the "mass consciousness". It was the purpose of excising the Bible of the Tripartite nature of the Human being - from being a body, spirit and soul, into a "body and spirit" duality.

This mathematical/spiritual change (Mike, you might really appreciate this) makes all the difference in the world. And, was a deliberate decision made by the Catholic Church back before Constantine (I believe, I don't have time to check my history) - back around the 300's AD. Have you any idea why this change was made? [ed: it actually happened in the 9th century]

The change was made because there will always need to be 3 points to a triangle. Note that the Supernal Triangle is the format on which all the other triangles exist. 10 is made of 3 triangles. It is the OUTCOME of them. This esoteric point was pounded into us in the Sepher Yetzirah. 10, not 9, for a reason.

Note again the therapist/client relationship is a duality. It is based on the same assumption that the Church promulgated when it excised the differentiation of spirit and soul into the amalgamated Spirit/Soul thing.

Look at the staff of Hermes. Are there 2 components or Three?  There you have your answer about how healing occurs.

So, I would be willing to say that yes, a "therapist" or any other person, is an "ingredient" in the happening of the movement of life.  BUT, this Triangle relationship rests upon 2 pillars, does it not? That third thing is [often] not established in the minds of the Therapist, nor of the "client".

Now, here's another point in my idiosyncratic view. Who is receiving the "healing". This is a really "hilarious" (IMO) assumption set up in the therapist/client relationship.

The "change" or the "movement of life" between two people entered into a transaction of any kind, changes both of them. I would argue that all movement of life is productive, life affirming. So, given that both parties have benefited from the transaction, why should one compensate in "coin of the realm" the other?

Now, let's look at the very most positive case under which a "therapist" might "help" a client. This is the motivational stance that the best of the best are in when they sign up and do this job. The good therapist (and I mean this as good, no sarcasm, Bruce or others, here) could believe that the best possible outcome of therapy would be that the "client" be "more themselves". Some how or another they are aligned with this goal. Somehow or another, they act in some way that will demonstrate their alignment to this. They will push their "countertransferences" out of the way, or "use them" for the client's good, as Bruce says.

What has occurred here? Validating the pure essence of beingness within another, presumably. Through the process of validating the IAM-ness of the other this recognition encourages, perhaps, someone stuck in being something that they think that they "should be" (this is I believe at the Center of Angela's post about her personal pain, just my opinion), and offering them the opportunity to "show up as themselves" in the interaction.....

Who is seen here? What is seen? By Whom? What happens in the best of therapeutic moments when the Life shines forth from an individual?

OK, now for something personal. I went to school to "be" a psychologist specifically because the most beautiful moments in my entire life, that I ever spent, were in being a WITNESS TO THE LIGHT IN ANOTHER. I actually paid good money so that I could do this professionally (LOL, I hope you get the divine joke here Bruce). There is nothing that I like more than to be in the presence of the Beingness of another.

Do you think I should pay, or the person who is doing the "being" should pay me? Or should we do this with each other each and every moment of our lives, to the best of our abilities? And give thanks and praise to the Lord of the Universe, in all it's forms, from YHWH, ELHYM, ADNYI and the others. For being a part of, and being, ADam Kadmon?

It would be accurate to say that Bruce is right, I am "idiosyncratic", or that I happen to disagree upon issues that are commonly held by most people to have the very opposite viewpoint. I happen to believe that it is my duty and obligation to do so. Were I to profess something else, I would be skewing the sand pile, and I would be adding my lifebreath to the building of a vision that I don't subscribe to, in which the majority benefits and the minority is censured, drugged, beaten, enslaved, or otherwise non-equally respected, for the "benefit" of the majority - or the ones who hold "power".

Forgive my questioning the whole set of assumptions about "people getting better", it's a personal thing. I'm very de-constructionist lately, and most likely by nature. I always like to look at both sides of everything before I make up my mind about something. If I can't step into both viewpoints, i don't feel like I've done my homework about something.

I'll end this with some questions that pop into my mind: who is healing whom? What is better? Who's criteria? Who's to say when "better" should happen? What if the progression is "downwards"?  In AA, we're told people ought to hit bottom, have an awakening. And that some will die before they hit their bottom.

Is it loving to allow this, or loving to prevent this? If I'd rather be somewhere else right now, rather than be sitting here "being with" this person, should I cancel this session? Should I work with people I don't like? What right do I have to suggest anything to another person, as if I know better? Who sets the agenda about how this interaction takes place? 

Is it "client-centered" "therapist-centered" or "us-centered" or something else. If I work within the American Mental Health System, and this person pays me with something other than greenbacks (i.e., welfare money, insurance benefits, etc.) who is my client?

If I conform to the rules and regulations established by my profession, and I actually doing what's best for the person that I am engaging? If I am legally licensed I am required to keep notes about what is discussed in therapy. Those who "know" know that these notes are often read and used against the client by third parties. Is this honorable? OR do I say that I am keeping notes, and don't?

Do I do what I know to be right for this person, or do I sometimes play CYA, and suggest alternatives, or do procedures that are really safeguarding my professional credentials, rather than doing the best thing for the person? Whose best interests are being minded here?

These are just some of MY internal questions.

But thanks, Fool, and others, for the opportunity to lay out the contents of my mind, and my feelings about "healing others" onto the table. I hope that it is good fodder for others. That is why I present it. One last comment: Fool, you can see a difference between a relatively assumptive position that says that healing is done by others and a possibility where the individual heals themselves. If you say yes, but to that vision and go back to the "dominant" paradigm, what in essence are you promoting.

Joseph really emphasizes this "going for what you want" idea, rather than backing up and taking the "safer" stance. My personal experience is that the "safer" stance isn't all that "safe" if one is looking at safety from a larger perspective. There is a tremendous benefit (IMO IMO IMO) in speaking as one really feels.

What would happen if someone came to you, and said "Can you help me" and you said "The Lord of the Universe helps us all....perhaps we can together examine your problem, to our best of abilities and the Beneficent One will inspire us to a clearer view? I would be most honored to take part in examining your question." Or something like that. OR, when someone asks you to "pass the potatoes", do you see that this is simply mutual interaction with congenial mutual regard, or do you charge them?"

Sorry, I just find this idea ODD. But then, I didn't set out to "help others" but to participate in the miracle of their becomingness through interaction.

Does this clarify?

L.

____________________

But don't be too independent with the cop that pulls you over on the highway or the judge you appear before as a result. Your independence does not mean that you ignore the needs of those in your network , but your response needs to be free to express from the heart--not cultural "musts and/or shoulds."

This takes some rather discriminating "want watching." Dependence is not a bad thing when we are immature, in fact it can be a life saving guide in many instances. Fire burns and water can drown--both needing careful introduction to avoid casualties.

Yet dependence can be addicting. It's very comforting in our immaturity to feel that others are to blame for our blunders. Ann used to jokingly say, "God made me do it." But the utter freedom and independence of the Life Force/Self is a constant "want' pressure on the yet dependent. Highly visible in adolescence.

With the Self, there just ain't any thing or anybody to be dependent on. What's that song? " I wanna be free!" Yea, verily.

Is there one for therapists? "I won't be seeing you."

Question: What's the price of this freedom? It's not free.

Joseph