Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2006, at 1:14:28
In reply to Re: now that's an interesting coincidence, posted by alexandra_k on September 28, 2006, at 22:23:01
Maybe it is about... Her wanting to terminate me. Not in the sense of referring me on, in the sense of terminating me. Because she does try and say 'do you want to make another appoitment?' (hoping I'll say 'no'). She does try to move to fortnightly sessions. I don't think they are typically a long term service. More a very short term / once off kind of service.
Maybe she thinks that there is nothing wrong with me and I don't need therapy.
Maybe...
She is right.
Maybe I don't need therapy. If I want therapy then that is another matter and one day when I'm earning I guess I'll have that option.
I think...
It might just... Be time to move on from this. Time to move on.
Because... Sure... I'm sure I could benefit from seeing someone. But how much money would I be prepared to pay to do that? I don't want to become a therapy junkie. Maybe it is time for me to move on.
I don't know what is up with me today...
Not seeing her for two weeks.
Then she is going away in October.
So I'll see that other lady and we shall see...
Maybe it is about... Her wanting her supervisor to assess me to see whether they should continue to see me or not. I'm thinking the answer is going to be 'no'. Part of me wants to say that I haven't been able to express my vulnerability because it isn't safe. But another part of me knows that if I can keep my vulnerability hidden... How much help do I really need.F*ck I piss myself off sometimes.
'The *Intentional paradigm* also assumes there are no mental illnesses. [never mind the *in general* notion. worrying about me here] Instead, abnormal behaviour is seen as the volountary adoption of strategies to cope with difficult circumstances. 'Our view of psychosis [never mind *psychosis* worrying about me] constitutes more a 'way of life' hypothesis than a 'disease' hypothesis. We assume the patient to have what he regards as good reasons for behaving the way he does - that he has in mind some purpose from which his behaviour logically follows. (Rakusin and Feiner, 1963, p.140). Both Laing... And Szasz, who sees hysterical behaviour as a game played by a person to get help, subscribe to such a paradigm. It explains the disturbed behaviour with the following assumptions: first, that 'symptoms' are really volountary actions performed as a result of desires (to cope) and beliefs (that this strategy is the best way to cope). And second, 'symptoms' occur as a result of situations where such strategies are intelligible... The intentional paradigm denies that the disturbed patient is entitled to the sick role. SInce he is volountarily bringing about his disturbing behaviour, he is responsible for it. In fact, on this paradigm, it is often the very existence of the sick role that makes such disturbed behaviour possible. According to the intentional paradigm, people will play at being mad in order to avail themselves of the benefits of the sick role:
The patient emerges as an individual who, for reasons we shall specify, very often chooses, though not necessarily consciously, institutionalisation as either an intermittent or enduring way of life. Once in the institution, the ...[person] exploits his environment in a wholly effective and rational manner in order to extract from it personally satisfying outcomes (Braginsky, Braginsky and Ring, 1969, p. 162)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:689710
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060926/msgs/690114.html