Posted by alexandra_k on July 19, 2005, at 20:22:53
In reply to Re: good session about sessions » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 19, 2005, at 18:29:19
> Your belief about being multiple?
??? I guess... I'm not 100% sure that I am... Well. I guess I fairly uncontroversially meet criteria, but I'm not at all sure that those aren't behaviours that my treatment within community mental health hasn't coaxed out of me over the years. I don't know. There was stuff there before I went into the system. But I don't know how much the system makes me worse by focusing in on certain things and inadvertantly coaxing certain behaviours out of me... Without that who knows. Maybe they will just lessen as I work on improving my life rather than trying to work on running away from some pathology or other. I don't know. I know some people think they DO know. They would say that I was just afraid and that is why I am trying to rationalise this. But I don't think ANYBODY knows what is going to happen or not happen for me. And I'd rather someone join me on the journey to find out rather than believe they do know when actually they don't. Might turn out they were right after all but I don't want it to become a matter of therapist fulfilling prophesy. And I don't want to be sucked into that way of thinking just because they are the supposed *experts*. I'm me, I am NOT a typical instance of some dx or other for them to be able to say what is going to happen with me to any degree of authority. Thats harsh, but I am coming round to this way of thinking a little more all the time...
> There's a reasonable movement stating that if it doesn't cause you problems in your life, it's not pathology at all. And that therapy should focus on reducing the problems, not anything else.
> But if I remember correctly, you don't think much of that approach.Ah. Thats a different description of 'the movement' than the description we were dealing with last time. Last time it was about the 'right to remain multiple'. In other words the right to continue to have missing time and periods of amnesia when you don't know what the body has been up to. Thats what I was a little wary of... You have the right I suppose... But it is one hell of a responsibility to have to take legal and moral responsibility for actions you can't even remember doing... Or I suppose if one doesn't think that one alter (or the host) is legally and / or morally responsible for the actions of another alter then it is a way of avoiding responsibility altogether. Does that sound healthy to you? It was that that I thought was dubious. They wanted to say that there was no reason other than a prejudice for a simple self to say that integration was the aim of therapy. That integration is violating these peoples right to remain multiple. Well thats fine... So long as they don't expect to avoid certain moral and legal responsibilities via exercising their 'rights'. IMO...
But this description is a bit different. Sounds fine to me.
In fact it reminds me of the DSM defintion of mental illness. Symptoms have to be severe enough to significantly impact on ones social / occupational functioning etc etc. Otherwise... Its not a mental illness. Its not a problem if its not a problem...
>I don't want her to meet them. I don't want anybody to meet them.
But I do want to be able to talk about them and about what they say to me etc when I need to. Supporters would take issue with my not wanting my t to meet them. Sceptics would take issue with my not being able to just stop with talking about them.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:530009
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050716/msgs/530310.html