I'm not sure as yet I've seen this in so many words, but it looks to me like
OE's themselves are the major accelerant for neurosis formation. In TPD, the OEs
and neuroses are described in their roles for potentially positive development.
However, the two processes seem to be directly and deeply entwined as far as I
can tell.

A neurosis could form when a person insidiously and recurrently experiences,
contemplates, and/or fears negative thoughts or situations.  An overexcitability
trait would greatly and naturally magnify a negative reaction to cause
degenerative spiraling into neurosis or worse. A person with minimal OE traits
might not experience this problem, at least not so acutely.

So it looks absolutely essential for a person with OE traits to filter when and
where OE's become active, a process that could take active introspection over a
period of time.  From personal life experience, this is hard to do well.

I'm arguably a "Renaissance" person, and my strategy has been to break up that
degenerative process by distracting off ASAP to some unrelated interest and get
excited about that for a while - a mental vacation to another area. That stops
the degenerative spiral.  I have both a technical and arts background, so I
quickly pick some alternate activity for a while to provide a break - like go
fix a computer, do some photos for Ostenta Fine Arts, fix the car, or whatever.
Dance is the most effective break - that fixes everything.  I've been in several
dance companies and in shows, so I'm not just speculating.

To digress slightly, I got this idea from super-regenerative radio designs
popular in the early 20th century.  To keep such a circuit from losing control a
"quench" frequency is imposed to keep the circuit from going "psychotic", which
in this case would mean an uncontrolled oscillation state where the radio
suddenly is no longer responsive to outside signals - a total loss of electronic
syntony.  Seemingly a perfect analogy to psychosis. The "quench" keeps this from
happening. That's how I got the idea I use on myself as "therapy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_circuit

--
Jim

I had studied Joseph Conrad as part of my Dabrowski but my interest was
renewed when the film Apocalypse now came out. I'm sure my friends had
doubts about my sanity when I told them the movie had really nothing to do
with Vietnam and that I had seen it 40 or 50 times. The next couple of years
I had a careful look at T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound as well as Jessie Weston
and her book from ritual to Romance (seen on the night table of Kurtz). This
is essentially an overview of the Grail stories/Knights of the round table.
These legends of King Arthur usually have the same basic theme, the kingdom
is laid barren becoming a wasteland. Some quest is called for, usually
throwing in the Kings daughter as part of a successful journey. Invariably,
a brave knight volunteers and begins the quest for whatever object must be
found and returned. The quest involves a number of challenges to one's
character, bravery, one's morals, one's strength, etc. Of course, the object
is never secured but if the Knight faces the challenges successfully the
dragons are slayed and the kingdom is restored to its normal health and
vitality. These stories very much form the foundation of Conrad.



Of course, I found the film to be multilevel. The basic clash is between
civilization and technology -- whereas we try to solve everything with a
technological answer the natives have more faith in their cultural
continuity. For example when Army medics vaccinate the children, the
villagers cut off their arms to prevent their contamination. As Kurtz notes,
there is a brilliance to this level of willpower and dedication that the
Americans could never understand and therefore they could never win the war.
Just as the Knight develops and changes during his quest, as Willard goes up
the river he is transformed from a unilevel robotic soldier to an individual
making his own decisions, perhaps not yet multilevel but clearly moving in
that direction through his own positive disintegration. It would have been
curious to see a sequel showing Willard's ongoing development and where he
might have ended up on 20 years hence. Although critics often emphasize the
craziness of Kurtz, I think what comes through for me is that the war
itself, reflecting the unilevelness of its planners was truly crazy, for
example, the daily building/bombing/building/bombing of the bridge and the
juxtaposition of the playmates putting on a show in the jungle while the
starving villagers look on through the fence or, the boat being attacked by
the arrows and spears. there is an ironic scene where they are looking for
mangoes and encounter a tiger and clearly we see the difference between
Willard and the chef. On a personal note, there's a scene where Kurtz
expresses his frustration and says he "wanted to pull his teeth out" a
rather strange reaction I thought but I could totally relate as for some
reason I had had the same reaction.



Anecdotal -- Laurence Fishburne makes his appearance as a 16-year-old actor.
The film was notable for a scene with Martin Sheen where he gets drunk,
breaks a mirror and masturbates. This scene was filmed on Sheen's 50th
birthday during his own existential crisis which was then followed by a
major heart attack delaying the film for nine months. Harrison Ford appears
with a name badge on his chest, Lucas, honoring the fact that Coppola had no
money and George Lucas bailed him out. The original film had three endings
-- one shown at its premiere which had no credits, a version where Willard
does not call an airstrike but simply leaves and a third where Willard does
call in an airstrike completely destroying the village.



I would also mention that there is an outstanding companion documentary
movie they made during the filming of Apocalypse now which came out in 1991
called hearts of darkness.



I found the following essay particularly insightful on the topic:



Heart of Darkness/The Congo Diary (Penguin Classics)

by Joseph Conrad



reviews from Powells.com



Heart of Darkness/The Congo Diary (Penguin Classics)

by Joseph Conrad





Apocalypse Then

A Review by Doug Brown



The only film I ever faked an ID to get into was Apocalypse Now. I spent
half an hour in a social sciences class (ah, the irony) carefully altering
the birth year on my learner's permit. That evening, a couple of friends and
I went and beheld the spectacle. I recall thinking it was a really weird
movie; it wasn't until my second or third viewing in college that I finally
started to grok it in fullness. Of course, I had heard it was based on Heart
of Darkness, but even as the film grew to become one of my favorites I never
bothered to pick up Conrad. Given how the film is such a portrayal of the
chaos of the Vietnam War, and knowing how Coppola has a habit of completely
rewriting source material, I figured Conrad's novella would only bear a
cursory resemblance to the film. However, my classics-year project finally
left me out of excuses: it was time for the plunge.



And, amazingly, the film follows the book pretty closely. Many lines of
dialogue are straight from Conrad, and many plot points are replicated.
Marlow (Willard in the film) tells his story in flashback to a group of
friends. He recalls a voyage upriver for an ivory trading company to fetch a
man named Kurtz, at one of their furthest outposts. Kurtz has done very
well, sending more ivory back than anyone, which has upset the officious
balance of things. He's making everyone else look bad, and, worst of all, he
isn't paying attention to their orders and communiques. Due to his
ruthlessness the locals revere him almost as a god, and fear his being taken
away from them. Sound familiar?



I can imagine John Milius (Apocalypse Now's primary screenwriter) reading
Heart of Darkness and getting the inspirational flash of using it as an
allegory for Vietnam. I anticipated as I got farther into the book there
would be more divergence from the film, but the opposite happened. There is
a scene where the boat is enveloped in mist and then harmless little arrows
bombard the ship as the white men blaze away into the jungle, ending with
the black wheelman dying in amazement from a spear. Much of the dialogue for
Dennis Hopper's character is almost verbatim from a Russian we meet on the
dock in Kurtz's station, guiding the ship in past snags, telling them to
blast the steam whistle to scare off the natives, and gleefully bumming a
cigarette as the ship pulls in to dock. The Russian tells Marlow, "You don't
talk with that man -- you listen to him" and "this man has enlarged my
mind," and Marlow recounts that the Russian had said to him that "Mr. Kurtz
couldn't be mad. If I had heard him talk, only two days ago, I wouldn't dare
hint at such a thing." Another statement of the Russian's (like Dennis
Hopper's character, the Russian is never named) Apocalypse fans will
recognize:

He could be very terrible. You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an
ordinary man. No, no, no! Now -- just to give you an idea -- I don't mind
telling you, he wanted to shoot me one day -- but I don't judge him.

Some other references in the film are where Marlow is asked if methods are
unsound, and he replies that he sees no method at all; a report by Kurtz
with the handwritten "Exterminate all the brutes!" note in the margin; and a
line of Marlow's that is put into Dennis Hopper's mouth in the film is the
realization that Kurtz's soul is mad. And, of course, Kurtz's famous last
words are known to all:

He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision, -- he cried out twice,
a cry that was no more than a breath --

"The horror! The horror! "

Fans of Apocalypse Now don't have an excuse not to read Heart of Darkness .
It's short and it adds an extra dimension to the film characters
(particularly Kurtz). For everyone else, I found this surprisingly
well-written. I say surprising because I had expected a lot of manly gung-ho
"let's go civilize the savages," but Conrad seemed more to be saying "this
is their world, not ours." Whenever the whites with whom Marlow is traveling
upriver open fire into the jungle, he complains that all they are doing is
making smoke. Marlow's sympathies lie much more with the natives than his
European cohorts. There is an element of the civilized white man looking
down at the uncivilized blacks, but far less than Conrad's reputation led me
to expect. The "n" word only occurs a few times, unlike in Mark Twain where
it is in constant use. The whites looking to exploit Africa are the bad guys
here; Marlow respects Kurtz because Kurtz embraced the darkness that Africa
represented to Victorian Englishmen. But obviously, for Conrad the jungle is
really just a metaphor for the darkness in everyone's heart. Take the
journey upriver and perhaps get a glimpse into your own heart of darkness.
And, remember -- never get out of the boat.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The psychotherapy was not presented in a developmental context. It was
totally traditional as I later came to understand. I have a curiosity trait
and was a strong autodidact, so I gave the experience a developmental
context on my own. I picked up a lot of new vocabulary and took several
psych courses at UC. Etc. After a fair number of sessions, I never had
therapy again and moved to a DIY process. The therapist industry may have
lost some thousands of $$$ because of my personal traits.

[Bill] I guess the question for me would be if a Dabrowskian approach would
have contributed anything extra? First let's remember the first step is a
complete overview, essentially of your developmental potential -- this is
not limited to intellectual factors. So, do you have overexcitability? Do
you have signs of third factor? Signs of psychoneuroses? This diagnostic
process is collaborative and the patient no doubt learns a lot in the
process. Now, if the context is developmental, then the therapist can
sensitize you what may be coming -- more existential angst and depression
and perhaps positive disintegration but the therapist can also sensitize you
in terms of how to manage these challenges through using autopsychotherapy
and autoeducation. You discovered this on your own -- Dabrowski often
pointed out that individuals on the road to advanced development seldom seek
therapy precisely because they manage these challenges on their own. Again
this is a money question for therapy as if you can accomplish this in five
or 10 or 15 sessions then you're depriving the therapist of the cash cow
extending therapy into 30 or 50 or 70 sessions.

Looking my experience, the therapy took on a 100% developmental context
because of me and not the doctor. It seems to me at least that an individual
who is arguably "development inclined" will turn everything, no matter what,
into a positive process track.

So great question of yours. Now I'm trying to think back and wonder how it
might have helped if Dr. Waterfield had been TPD oriented. Right off the top
of my head, I do think the process would've been a lot faster. Having new
insight in an unfamiliar area on my own took time. A faster process would
mean a notable loss of income to my therapist. He said I'd be wealthy
someday but was wrong about that.
--
Jim





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier" <btillier@...>
wrote:

> I did get therapy for "PN". I
> developed a bleeding peptic ulcer, and that was a sign to an internist that
> I should get some therapy. Without that blatant psychosomatic sign, no one
> would've given any thought to PN. There clearly may be more subtle clues
> that are missed.

> [bill] did this therapy help? Did it present a developmental context?

By the time I started therapy the ulcer was gone and never came back. It
required transfusions and was a blessing in disguise as when the Draft Board
came looking for Viet Nam war fodder a short while later, I was rejected with a
summary IV-F in the mail. The ulcer was great luck and except for the 2 pint
blood loss was not a hassle. There was still a PN issue though.

The psychotherapy was not presented in a developmental context. It was totally
traditional as I later came to understand. I have a curiosity trait and was a
strong autodidact, so I gave the experience a developmental context on my own. 
I picked up a lot of new vocabulary and took several psych courses at UC. Etc.
After a fair number of sessions, I never had therapy again and moved to a DIY
process.  The therapist industry may have lost some thousands of $$$ because of
my personal traits.

Looking my experience, the therapy took on a 100% developmental context because
of me and not the doctor.  It seems to me at least that an individual who is
arguably "development inclined" will turn everything, no matter what, into a
positive process track.

So great question of yours. Now I'm trying to think back and wonder how it might
have helped if Dr. Waterfield had been TPD oriented. Right off the top of my
head, I do think the process would've been a lot faster. Having new insight in
an unfamiliar area on my own took time.  A faster process would mean a notable
loss of income to my therapist.  He said I'd be wealthy someday but was wrong
about that.
--
Jim

Bill -

    That is an amazingly cool story! Thank you so much for sharing that. It
deeply inspires me.

   Holly

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(Bill) Several people have said that they just could not*agree* with dab. so
they just changed it but still kept their new version

under his name. this just sets back things 50 years    ...

    No, it does not. That is fear/anxiety speaking. What it does is confuse
people who could benefit from it on a holistic level. Every massive "human"
achievement has been exploited by someone for personal gain. Hence, my point
about a gun manual. One person does not create a revolution - they create a
temper tantrum. *MANY* people create a revolution! If we as a group own this
thing, take responsibility for it's use, and as a group stay on tract with it -
and do the work, the big T truth will become transparent to others. It is the
tortoise that won the race!

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(Jim)  What you're implying is that the answer is no. If these people had
experienced themselves the cycles proposed in TPD, they would summarily
accept the complete package I would think.

    YES! They would. In fact, Dabrowski pointed that out in Psycho Nuero. not an
illness. You either "get it" or you don't.

     At the risk of sounding very condensing here, (which is not at all intended)
there are times when subtly and tact just do not work very well.

    Back to my point about our sociological infantilism - hand a three year old a
loaded gun with the safety off and see how long it takes for them to shot
his/herself.

    The complaints noted have been something to the effect of "A three year old a
loaded gun without the safety on, keeps shooting stuff in my house. When I scold
them, they get scared and tell me it is not their fault." If we do not raise the
children that guns need to be respected early on, not messed around with, we
cannot blame them when they shot things or other people. How, exactly, did the
child get a hold of the gun in the first place? ...It got left out on a coffee
table. It is not important how that happened, it is more important that the
children learn to respect it.

    Just as three year old children do not carry the cognitive ability to
understand what the gun is...there are people with the work not capable of using
it correctly. Dabrowski knew his work was in fact, a loaded weapon. He kept
destroying it to hide the work for a reason. Had the Nazi's gotten a hold of it
- well I shudder at the thought.

    The responsibility of how the work is used, it is up to all of us as a group.
Not just one individual.

    So instead of discussing this as a marketing issue - let us all be real here
with each other - this theory needs a gun safety course not commercials that
resemble NRA campaigns.

     Putting TPD into the realm of "gifted" - which, there is some population
overlap - and not correct them immediately when they shoot at things - such as
the Petrowski group, or to put TPD into the realm of "elitism" where we say that
only these really special super evolved people can use this (do not touch that
honey, it's for adults) means the theory should not be on the coffee table if no
one wants to parent. If a child is raised with a concept, and in this case the
children are society as a whole, raised to understand the concept - by adult
hood they have grasped it and either intregrated it or rejected it. The group
effort needs to be on understanding it - even in it's finer points. If people
are not getting the theory than, we (as a group)  have failed as parents to
teach and guide. If the parents are not getting it - than, perhaps the gun needs
to go back into the safe least they shot themselves with it.

    We (as a group) are going to understand different pieces of the theory in
different ways. We are not always going to agree. However, it is imperitive that
we come to some sort of basic agreements. Otherwise, you have Dad telling the
kids they can have cookies before lunch, and Mom saying no.

(Jim) it seems to come back to earlier parts of the discussion where it was
questioned whether a therapist less along the the developmental way
could be effective in a complete TPD context.

     The answer is yes and no. No, not completely as effective. However, children
have this special capacity to see things exactly for what they are - without the
pretense - and having that insight is priceless to a person in the throws of
TPD. Everyone who wants to work on TPD has value and a place if we are a group
are willing to teach them and each other with some love, understanding and
pacience. Just a thought.

   Holly





_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill -

Sometime this month, someone who does not know there is a path through the
storm, a light house sitting there, will jump off the cliff. A life that
could have been saved. A pathway that could have been given - lost. The
pathways need to be built by those that have gone before. Regardless of who
hands it to them. I in my own personal life, need those of you that have
gone before to light my pathway. Even if you do not always agree with how I
meander through it.

It takes some people a long time to "get it" when they are "dealing with
it". Let us embrace compassion and understanding - not go down a uni-level
path.

[bill] holly-thanks for this. You never know how what impact the real goods
will have on  the person. Dab rings true because it is deeply authentic,
imagine an art dealer holding a Monet and saying 'gee I don't like this
part, l think l will just touch it up a bit - what a loss! but that is
exactly what we face. Here those who tinker say but l am improving it, l
understand it better than dab, [he didn't really understand his own theory-
did not understand English et. ], what egocentric arrogance. Sorry to rant
on but this so vital, as you say, every day another goes over the cliff.
Hugs back, bill

Read this true story:

His name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish farmer. One day, he heard a
cry for help coming from a nearby bog.



There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and
struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the boy from what would
have been a slow and terrifying death.



The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse
surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced
himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved.



'I want to repay you,' said the nobleman. 'You saved my son's life.'



'No, I can't accept payment for what I did,' the Scottish farmer replied
waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door.




'Is that your son?' the nobleman asked.



'Yes,' the farmer replied proudly.



'I'll make you a deal. Let me provide him with the level of education my own
son will enjoy If the lad is anything like his father, he'll no doubt grow
to be a man we both will be proud of.' And that he did.


Farmer Fleming's son attended the very best schools and in time, graduated
from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become
known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the
discoverer of Penicillin.



Years afterward, the same nobleman's son who was saved from the bog was
stricken with pneumonia.


What saved his life this time? Penicillin.



The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill .... His son's name?



Sir Winston Churchill.





Hugs,

Holly


__________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The big T Truth is, to do anything less than be absolutely True to the
work, as written, as intended, in my mind is a moral and ethical crime. We
would be cheating the world of the lifes work of a genius. Or taking that
work, much to the horror of the inventor, and turning it something of an
Atomic bomb. I for one, have Michelanglo's temperment on this - with similar
thoughts towards the marketing issue. Even science requires faith in
something. I have faith that if we do the work, the results will come.

[bill]
[bill] agree completely.  My point was always we must really understand the
original before we can tinker or improve it. What has happened was that
people just wrote what they wanted and put it out under dabs. name just to
cash in on his popularity. Several people have said that they just could not
*agree* with dab. so they just changed it but still kept their new version
under his name. this just sets back things 50 years

    Cheers,
    Holly








To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: azotero@...
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:30:09 +0000
Subject: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: RE Article: Emotional life and
psychotherapy of the gifted




























       --- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier"
<btillier@...> wrote:



-what makes me sick today is that people *could* get it

> right but they are just driven by ego and don't care about the ethics of
it

> all. the ones who suffer are the  kids who really need the help and this

> watered down version is not much help or that different than what is
already

> out there- so they have really neutered dab what a shame  indeed.



There are two separate issues - a "product" and "marketing of the product".
I can certainly attest and arguably prove that D's product is valid, useful,
and valuable based on a look at my life experience and those of others.  So
there's no doubt in my mind nor the minds of many serious academics that the
product - TPD - is superb.



Issue #2 is the marketing of a product.  Key to marketing is the idea of
"market focus".  All marketing has a focus.  Once the focus is defined, then
the attributes of the population focus must be carefully considered in every
possible light and context.  With that knowledge the selling process begins.
A selling process concludes with a "close".  The sale has to have a close to
be successful.



If a great product is not going over as desired in the idea marketplace,
then there are issues with the sales and closing process. What would be the
"objections" from persons in the "market focus"??  We've touched on some
such as liability and complexity.  Any objections, whether implicit or
expressed, would have to be clearly addressed in order to successfully sell
this "product" as desired.

--

Jim


















_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to:   dabrowskidiscussiongroup@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
dabrowskidiscussiongroup-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

Hmmm...that's tough. If I look at my own life experience - and I arguably
fit the definition of "gifted" way back when - I did get therapy for "PN". I
developed a bleeding peptic ulcer, and that was a sign to an internist that
I should get some therapy. Without that blatant psychosomatic sign, no one
would've given any thought to PN. There clearly may be more subtle clues
that are missed.

[bill] did this therapy help? Did it present a developmental context?



Very interesting, and it seems to come back to earlier parts of the
discussion where it was questioned whether a therapist less along the
developmental way could be effective in a complete TPD context. What you're
implying is that the answer is no. If these people had experienced
themselves the cycles proposed in TPD, they would summarily accept the
complete package I would think.

[bill] yes I think that from my experience, those who have no personal
experience of ML  and of pos. disint. have a hard time getting the theory
and I think the same goes for therapy.


--
Jim





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill -

   Sometime this month, someone who does not know there is a path through the
storm, a light house sitting there, will jump off the cliff. A life that could
have been saved. A pathway that could have been given - lost. The pathways need
to be built by those that have gone before. Regardless of who hands it to them.
I in my own personal life, need those of you that have gone before to light my
pathway. Even if you do not always agree with how I meander through it.

     It takes some people a long time to "get it" when they are "dealing with
it". Let us embrace compassion and understanding - not go down a uni-level path.


    Hugs,

    Holly



_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim -

     I would like to respond to your thoughts on marketing for a moment from a
more personal perspective.

     I am a Fine Artist and an Art Historian. This presents an interesting
duality in academic settings. Most art historians do not make art. So they do
not have the experiential experience of the works they study. Further, they do
not *think* or emotionally process as an artist. I would say one is more rooted
in emotional and spiritual and then other is more rooted in analytical and
intellectual realms. Not to say either field lacks the traits of the other but,
there is a dominance in each.

    I am sitting in an Art History class a few months ago. We are discussing
Monet and Van Gogh. I brought Turner, Millet and, Pissaro into the discussion.
There is a cohesive between them that extends beyond the formal qualities of
their works. I found myself having a very difficult time explaining this to the
people in the room that do not make art. Those that make art - immediately
caught onto what I was saying. There was a spiritual commonality. A keen social
conciousness - a seeking to get out of the physical realm into something deeper.
A big T Truth. Much like a connection I see between Jung and Dabrowski. There is
a common big T Truth under all the scientific writing - there is a soul to the
work.

    We all know Van Gogh was not marketed until after his death. Monet was making
some money but his work did not really gain popularity until Greenberg wrote an
article on the connection between Abstract Expressionist - and MOMA started
buying up his later work. Millet, although a Master, is still concidered to be
somewhat less desirable than Pissaro, who was marketed as a Marxist. We discuss
the later two mostly as influences. They have been taken out of context so far
by the public and marketing without the benifits of having their work
bastardized - that few people can really get to the place the artist wanted them
to glean was possible.

    So here I am on the art scence. If I want to sell something I need to make it
digestable to the public. However, here I am with something to say - some place
I want to go personally that I hope maybe my viewer might glean. Do I comprimise
my work for the public or like many Masters, wait for the public to catch up?
Rembrandt comprimised. So did Da Vinchi. Anslem Kiefer has. Jim Dine did.
Michelanglo however, told the pope to go fornicate himself. (And that was poliet
compared to the artist's remarks).

    Dabrowski is no longer with us, sadly. He will not reap the benifits of
bastardizing his work and, much like Jesus, no longer has a say in how his
life's message is translated. That leaves those of us who have his work with the
bill.

    So we have some chioces, we can be like Michelanglo and shove the marketing
aside and *Do the work!* or we can be like Kiefer and try balancing the two, or
be like Jim Dine and "sell out" hoping some people "get it"...

     The big T Truth is, to do anything less than be absolutely True to the work,
as written, as intended, in my mind is a moral and ethical crime. We would be
cheating the world of the lifes work of a genius. Or taking that work, much to
the horror of the inventor, and turning it something of an Atomic bomb. I for
one, have Michelanglo's temperment on this - with similar thoughts towards the
marketing issue. Even science requires faith in something. I have faith that if
we do the work, the results will come.

    Cheers,
    Holly








To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: azotero@...
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:30:09 +0000
Subject: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: RE Article: Emotional life and
psychotherapy of the gifted




























       --- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier"
<btillier@...> wrote:



-what makes me sick today is that people *could* get it

> right but they are just driven by ego and don't care about the ethics of it

> all. the ones who suffer are the  kids who really need the help and this

> watered down version is not much help or that different than what is already

> out there- so they have really neutered dab what a shame  indeed.



There are two separate issues - a "product" and "marketing of the product".  I
can certainly attest and arguably prove that D's product is valid, useful, and
valuable based on a look at my life experience and those of others.  So there's
no doubt in my mind nor the minds of many serious academics that the product -
TPD - is superb.



Issue #2 is the marketing of a product.  Key to marketing is the idea of "market
focus".  All marketing has a focus.  Once the focus is defined, then the
attributes of the population focus must be carefully considered in every
possible light and context.  With that knowledge the selling process begins.  A
selling process concludes with a "close".  The sale has to have a close to be
successful.



If a great product is not going over as desired in the idea marketplace, then
there are issues with the sales and closing process. What would be the
"objections" from persons in the "market focus"??  We've touched on some such as
liability and complexity.  Any objections, whether implicit or expressed, would
have to be clearly addressed in order to successfully sell this "product" as
desired.

--

Jim


















_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier" <btillier@...>
wrote:
>
> OK- but in this case the marketing *changed* the product, Piechowski has
> explained part of his rationale in a 2009 paper: "Therapy was seen as
> something for sick people, it carried a stigma. But gifted children were
> living under the dark cloud of old myths that they are odd, abnormal, weak
> or sickly. To try to explain psychoneuroses in that climate would have been
> disastrous." But in *not* explaining aspects of PN and positive
> disintegration in TPD and only focusing on OE, those working with the gifted
> were not sensitized to *look* for signs of PN  and PD in these kids. That's
> a big problem.

Hmmm...that's tough.  If I look at my own life experience - and I arguably fit
the definition of "gifted" way back when - I did get therapy for "PN".  I
developed a bleeding peptic ulcer, and that was a sign to an internist that I
should get some therapy.  Without that blatant psychosomatic sign, no one
would've given any thought to PN.  There clearly may be more subtle clues that
are missed.

Very interesting, and it seems to come back to earlier parts of the discussion
where it was questioned whether a therapist less along the the developmental way
could be effective in a complete TPD context.  What you're implying is that the
answer is no. If these people had experienced themselves the cycles proposed in
TPD, they would summarily accept the complete package I would think.
--
Jim

OK- but in this case the marketing *changed* the product, Piechowski has
explained part of his rationale in a 2009 paper: "Therapy was seen as
something for sick people, it carried a stigma. But gifted children were
living under the dark cloud of old myths that they are odd, abnormal, weak
or sickly. To try to explain psychoneuroses in that climate would have been
disastrous." But in *not* explaining aspects of PN and positive
disintegration in TPD and only focusing on OE, those working with the gifted
were not sensitized to *look* for signs of PN  and PD in these kids. That's
a big problem.

We have not circulated Dab's manuscript on developmental psychotherapy
widely as we may one day try to publish it, but, if anyone wants to dig
deeper, I will send it out individually, as I have in the past, for example,
Sue Jackson was given a copy - that is why it is disappointing to see so
little of the core ideas reflected in her writing.



--Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Piechowski's
<http://positivedisintegration.com/Response%20to%20William%20Tillier.pdf>
response to William Tillier's "Conceptual differences between Piechowski and
Dabrowski" In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). (2009). Imagining
the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (pp. 70 - 74).
Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference.
November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).



From: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of onewhip
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:30 AM
To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: RE Article: Emotional life and
psychotherapy of the gifted





--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:dabrowskidiscussiongroup%40yahoogroups.com> , "Bill Tillier"
<btillier@...> wrote:

-what makes me sick today is that people *could* get it
> right but they are just driven by ego and don't care about the ethics of
it
> all. the ones who suffer are the kids who really need the help and this
> watered down version is not much help or that different than what is
already
> out there- so they have really neutered dab what a shame indeed.

There are two separate issues - a "product" and "marketing of the product".
I can certainly attest and arguably prove that D's product is valid, useful,
and valuable based on a look at my life experience and those of others. So
there's no doubt in my mind nor the minds of many serious academics that the
product - TPD - is superb.

Issue #2 is the marketing of a product. Key to marketing is the idea of
"market focus". All marketing has a focus. Once the focus is defined, then
the attributes of the population focus must be carefully considered in every
possible light and context. With that knowledge the selling process begins.
A selling process concludes with a "close". The sale has to have a close to
be successful.

If a great product is not going over as desired in the idea marketplace,
then there are issues with the sales and closing process. What would be the
"objections" from persons in the "market focus"?? We've touched on some such
as liability and complexity. Any objections, whether implicit or expressed,
would have to be clearly addressed in order to successfully sell this
"product" as desired.
--
Jim





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier" <btillier@...>
wrote:

  -what makes me sick today is that people *could* get it
> right but they are just driven by ego and don't care about the ethics of it
> all. the ones who suffer are the  kids who really need the help and this
> watered down version is not much help or that different than what is already
> out there- so they have really neutered dab what a shame  indeed.

There are two separate issues - a "product" and "marketing of the product".  I
can certainly attest and arguably prove that D's product is valid, useful, and
valuable based on a look at my life experience and those of others.  So there's
no doubt in my mind nor the minds of many serious academics that the product -
TPD - is superb.

Issue #2 is the marketing of a product.  Key to marketing is the idea of "market
focus".  All marketing has a focus.  Once the focus is defined, then the
attributes of the population focus must be carefully considered in every
possible light and context.  With that knowledge the selling process begins.  A
selling process concludes with a "close".  The sale has to have a close to be
successful.

If a great product is not going over as desired in the idea marketplace, then
there are issues with the sales and closing process. What would be the
"objections" from persons in the "market focus"??  We've touched on some such as
liability and complexity.  Any objections, whether implicit or expressed, would
have to be clearly addressed in order to successfully sell this "product" as
desired.
--
Jim

-- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, Puffywaun Jones <PuffyWaun@...>
wrote:

> I think the seeds where already there from the beginning however, at some
point - some event occurs - a developmental push occurs as result of the event
and to the person experiencing it - it does seem like a snap from one state to
another. Examples, Death of a spouse, parent or, child.

Yes good, I agree.  Probably if the person is already on a verge, it might just
take a very small push to change states and not a major event or trauma.
--
Jim

Hi don't have my computer for a few days -this is a day late- right on holly
we spend a few years in college and we get a degree and we think we are
Sigmund freud - dab spent over 50 years *passionately* on this - it was very
sad to see him at the end-he had put his faith in people and was betrayed
and after all of his life of work he died with this anxiety that it was
being subverted -what makes me sick today is that people *could* get it
right but they are just driven by ego and don't care about the ethics of it
all. the ones who suffer are the  kids who really need the help and this
watered down version is not much help or that different than what is already
out there- so they have really neutered dab what a shame  indeed.

-----Original Message-----
From: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Puffywaun
Jones
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:21 AM
To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: RE Article: Emotional life and
psychotherapy of the gifted



I would say they are likely more predictable. But I'd say there's a
continuum between unilevel and multilevel where shades of grey could
make the person's profile more complex than it looks on the surface.
Commonly, one probably doesn't snap from one state to the other.

I believe where people are concerned - yes there are shades of gray. One
does not snap from one to the other, generally I would agree with you in
that I think the seeds where already there from the beginning however, at
some point - some event occurs - a developmental push occurs as result of
the event and to the person experiencing it - it does seem like a snap from
one state to another. Examples, Death of a spouse, parent or, child.

Holly
To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: azotero@...
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:19:55 +0000
Subject: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: RE Article: Emotional life and
psychotherapy of the gifted




























       --- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, Puffywaun Jones
<PuffyWaun@...> wrote:



>    As for the Toyota analogy - OK I agree with you that people are complex
but unilevel people...they are predictable. They do what they have been
taught to do. That is why Behavioural Modification works on them. We
understand the learning process because we have observed it. Quantified it.
Qualified it.



I would say they are likely more predictable. But I'd say there's a
continuum between unilevel and multilevel where shades of grey could make
the person's profile more complex than it looks on the surface. Commonly,
one probably doesn't snap from one state to the other.

--

Jim


















_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive  gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?oc
id=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to:   dabrowskidiscussiongroup@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
dabrowskidiscussiongroup-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

I would say they are likely more predictable. But I'd say there's a
continuum between unilevel and multilevel where shades of grey could
make the person's profile more complex than it looks on the surface.
Commonly, one probably doesn't snap from one state to the other.

I believe where people are concerned - yes there are shades of gray. One does
not snap from one to the other, generally I would agree with you in that I think
the seeds where already there from the beginning however, at some point - some
event occurs - a developmental push occurs as result of the event and to the
person experiencing it - it does seem like a snap from one state to another.
Examples, Death of a spouse, parent or, child.

Holly
To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: azotero@...
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:19:55 +0000
Subject: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: RE Article: Emotional life and
psychotherapy of the gifted




























       --- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, Puffywaun Jones
<PuffyWaun@...> wrote:



>    As for the Toyota analogy - OK I agree with you that people are complex but
unilevel people...they are predictable. They do what they have been taught to
do. That is why Behavioural Modification works on them. We understand the
learning process because we have observed it. Quantified it. Qualified it.



I would say they are likely more predictable. But I'd say there's a continuum
between unilevel and multilevel where shades of grey could make the person's
profile more complex than it looks on the surface. Commonly, one probably
doesn't snap from one state to the other.

--

Jim


















_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive  gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=P\
ID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't have a problem with proposals of a "God" of whatever ineffable
supra-consciousness form. The response of organized religions to that
notion however has through time been corrupt, inertial, self-serving,
hypocritical, narrow, and frequently destructive.

Yes, I would completely agree with you there. Power corrupts.


It's a highly fragmented society where a statistical mass slants
unilevel. You know there are a lot of brilliant people out there, but
knowledge and wisdom seem to be poorly democratized. The analogy would
be with wealth where a small percentage now have most of it.


An intellectual "Dark Age". This sort of social stratification seems to be
cyclical. Perhaps, there is hope and moving towards another Age of Enlightenment
or Renaissance.


A larger society itself may actually mirror TPD in a macro way where
cycles of dis-integration and neurosis on a mass scale lead to periods
of positive development that would've otherwise been impossible

There does seem to be some indication that it the case.

Cheers,
Holly
To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: azotero@...
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:59:54 +0000
Subject: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: anti-intellectualism




























       --- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, Puffywaun Jones
<PuffyWaun@...> wrote:



>     My grandfather use to tell me it is better that people have faith in
something than, nothing at all.  Now, while I do not have a problem with
organized religion, in fact, I am not an aethest or agnostic -the older I get,
the more I doubt that we are better off with too much belief.



I do have a problem with organized religion. Paradoxically, I tend to be
analytical and detail oriented but am a theist.  I don't have a problem with
proposals of a "God" of whatever ineffable supra-consciousness form. The
response of organized religions to that notion however has through time been
corrupt, inertial, self-serving, hypocritical, narrow, and frequently
destructive.



>    This applies to theories, scientific data, ect. as well. One no longer
needs to acedemically study. One can simply get a Ph.D. - at a vanity
University, gaining expert status - and anything they come up with is capital T
truth. Do not need to check their sources. Do not need to see if they are taking
their sources out of context. They have, after all, a Ph.D.



It's true, we certainly need to beware of academic science taking on attributes
of organized religion.



> However, in our society today - few have the opprotunity to spend 40 years
working on the same project. They do not understand any longer what it is to
give 40 years of their life to a single idea.



Too much instant results thinking in many social systems.



>    We are not embracing stupidity as much as the infantilism of our society.
It is as if our entire Western Culture has regressed to the emotional level of a
three year old where we have become ego-centered, everything is about instant
gratification, base security needs, belief in fantasy and, a misplaced survival
instinct



Yes good; that's a more complete picture than saying merely "anti-intellectual".



> Then, we wonder why the baseline for our culture is where it is at?...Really?
We live in a uni-level culture. And until we take it upon ourselves at the
individual level to correct this in ourselves - we cannot begin to raise our
society to a higher level of understanding.



It's a highly fragmented society where a statistical mass slants unilevel.  You
know there are a lot of brilliant people out there, but knowledge and wisdom
seem to be poorly democratized.  The analogy would be with wealth where a small
percentage now have most of it.



A larger society itself may actually mirror TPD in a macro way where cycles of
dis-integration and neurosis on a mass scale lead to periods of positive
development that would've otherwise been impossible.

--

Jim


















_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive  gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=P\
ID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, Puffywaun Jones <PuffyWaun@...>
wrote:

>     My grandfather use to tell me it is better that people have faith in
something than, nothing at all.  Now, while I do not have a problem with
organized religion, in fact, I am not an aethest or agnostic -the older I get,
the more I doubt that we are better off with too much belief.

I do have a problem with organized religion. Paradoxically, I tend to be
analytical and detail oriented but am a theist.  I don't have a problem with
proposals of a "God" of whatever ineffable supra-consciousness form. The
response of organized religions to that notion however has through time been
corrupt, inertial, self-serving, hypocritical, narrow, and frequently
destructive.

>    This applies to theories, scientific data, ect. as well. One no longer
needs to acedemically study. One can simply get a Ph.D. - at a vanity
University, gaining expert status - and anything they come up with is capital T
truth. Do not need to check their sources. Do not need to see if they are taking
their sources out of context. They have, after all, a Ph.D.

It's true, we certainly need to beware of academic science taking on attributes
of organized religion.

> However, in our society today - few have the opprotunity to spend 40 years
working on the same project. They do not understand any longer what it is to
give 40 years of their life to a single idea.

Too much instant results thinking in many social systems.

>    We are not embracing stupidity as much as the infantilism of our society.
It is as if our entire Western Culture has regressed to the emotional level of a
three year old where we have become ego-centered, everything is about instant
gratification, base security needs, belief in fantasy and, a misplaced survival
instinct

Yes good; that's a more complete picture than saying merely "anti-intellectual".

> Then, we wonder why the baseline for our culture is where it is at?...Really?
We live in a uni-level culture. And until we take it upon ourselves at the
individual level to correct this in ourselves - we cannot begin to raise our
society to a higher level of understanding.

It's a highly fragmented society where a statistical mass slants unilevel.  You
know there are a lot of brilliant people out there, but knowledge and wisdom
seem to be poorly democratized.  The analogy would be with wealth where a small
percentage now have most of it.

A larger society itself may actually mirror TPD in a macro way where cycles of
dis-integration and neurosis on a mass scale lead to periods of positive
development that would've otherwise been impossible.
--
Jim

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, Puffywaun Jones <PuffyWaun@...>
wrote:

>    As for the Toyota analogy - OK I agree with you that people are complex but
unilevel people...they are predictable. They do what they have been taught to
do. That is why Behavioural Modification works on them. We understand the
learning process because we have observed it. Quantified it. Qualified it.

I would say they are likely more predictable. But I'd say there's a continuum
between unilevel and multilevel where shades of grey could make the person's
profile more complex than it looks on the surface. Commonly, one probably
doesn't snap from one state to the other.
--
Jim

Jim and Bill -

     And this would be a "gifted" issue.

    I had a Dept. Chair tell me when I apply to Graduate school to tell the
admissions board that I was "confused" and now "see the light". I am not
confused. I am Auto-Educating in a world that embraces bloviation without
content, specialization without holistically understanding and, would rather
believe in fairies than to acknowledge the Bible has gone through several
re-writes, religion becomes a cultural by-product, transliteration poses certain
issues and that early Christianity embraced woman.

     My grandfather use to tell me it is better that people have faith in
something than, nothing at all.  Now, while I do not have a problem with
organized religion, in fact, I am not an aethest or agnostic -the older I get,
the more I doubt that we are better off with too much belief.

     People choose particular base camps of belief not because they
intellectually make sense but because they emotionally make sense. It is ego
driven. We as a society tell people discrimination against difference is wrong -
but their instinct driven by unresolved Shadow issues is to discriminate. Rather
than come out and say, I am bigoted which is socially unacceptable and makes
them a "bad person" - they use religion to defend their biases. Homosexuals make
you uncomfortable? Well then, let us damn them all to Hell, in an effort to try
to force them into a behavioral pattern that does not threaten "Our Egos". That
is acceptable because we can use some abstract view of God that we have given
human attributes too, in order to defend our belief systems. Never mind that
these people have not taken the time to perform academic study of the Bible.
That is not the point. The point is they have a defense for a social taboo. The
same could be said for splintering groups in Islam and Buddhism. I do not think
any religion is immune in our culture to this sort of thing.

    This applies to theories, scientific data, ect. as well. One no longer needs
to acedemically study. One can simply get a Ph.D. - at a vanity University,
gaining expert status - and anything they come up with is capital T truth. Do
not need to check their sources. Do not need to see if they are taking their
sources out of context. They have, after all, a Ph.D.

    Dabrowski's work in particular is a good example of this working in the
intellectual realm. Everyone is looking for some place to belong. Some group to
fit in with. Some theory to make their make with. Some sense of validiation and
achievement. They do not have the moral/ethical awareness yet to realize that in
their efforts to get these things - they are destroying the integrity of the
work. Nor, do they stop and think of how they would feel if someone did this to
their life work. Mis-qouted it, bastardized it, cherry picked it and, used it
for purposes counter to what was orginally intended. However, in our society
today - few have the opprotunity to spend 40 years working on the same project.
They do not understand any longer what it is to give 40 years of their life to a
single idea.

    And this is where I get viewed as hostile. I do not believe anyone should be
changing or messing with his work until, we fully understand it. We cannot fully
understand it without testing it. We cannot test it if people are not able to
set their pet belief systems aside to look at the problem as it was orginally
presented. There are no "outside the box" solutions until one understands the
nature of the box. One cannot understand the nature of the box if one feels
trapped by it, fear of it or, threatened by the implications that the box exist.
That said, there are many people in Science that need to park the bias at the
door and work on getting out of the three year old mind set. I do not mean this
to be hostile however, sometimes children need a little guidance in the right
direction.

    We are not embracing stupidity as much as the infantilism of our society. It
is as if our entire Western Culture has regressed to the emotional level of a
three year old where we have become ego-centered, everything is about instant
gratification, base security needs, belief in fantasy and, a misplaced survival
instinct which - conspiracy theory or not - the US goverment has no problem
exploiting with Pre-School level colour charts indictating the likelyhood that
you could die today. Further, I would add to this list, social temper tantrums
that could result in a nuke war any day now, a hyper-sensitive need for
Authority to give us a recipe for living and not just in the Religious realm, an
immense terror of our own mortality and, if that was not enough - we are so
focused on individuality, self reliance ect. that here we have a society of
three year olds being told to go raise his/herself! Then, we wonder why the
baseline for our culture is where it is at?...Really? We live in a uni-level
culture. And until we take it upon ourselves at the individual level to correct
this in ourselves - we cannot begin to raise our society to a higher level of
understanding.

I will get off my soap box now.

Holly

To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: azotero@...
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:57:05 +0000
Subject: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] Re: anti-intellectualism




























       --- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier"
<btillier@...> wrote:



> I'm a bit confused because it seems like the more we get to know, the less

> people really want to know. On top of that, when it comes to a showdown

> between opinion and evidence, evidence is sure to fail. 50% of Americans do

> not believe in evolution. Are we really living in such an anti-intellectual

> climate?



Yes, I believe so.



It's likely for at least 3 reasons: mass media, educational specialization so
that it's hard to get an accurate bigger view, and perfusion of organized
faith-based religion.



The mass media have a multi-billion dollar stake in idiotic entertainment and
outrageous blow-hard radio pundits. It gradually becomes acceptable and even
desirable to be an idiot.



Education got away from a now archaic emphasis on breadth. In today's scenario
people may analyze their own specific work related problems in depth but
completely miss a larger picture and thus be functionally "dumb" away from their
specialty.  A brand of asynchronous development.  College is now so expensive
that unless one is a bona fide autodidact, the student must make every unit
count as a direct income producing investment in some chosen narrow specialty as
their only higher education.



In the US there is a insidious perfusion of faith-based religion that poses a
hazard to long run development.  In the US it was about a quarter century ago
that organized religion folks decided they needed to actively saturate as many
aspects of society and government with their faith based mores as possible. 
These organizations have a tax free ride to make matters worse.

--

Jim


















_________________________________________________________________
Get gifts for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now.
http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=xbox+games&scope=cashback&form=MSHYCB&publ\
=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_Shopping_Giftsforthem_cashback_1x1

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On "Cherry Picking" the theory...

    I think people pull out of the theory what they are capable of understanding
and reject what they are not capable of understanding. Rather or not this is
backed by an educational institution over the long run - this will still occur.

    I am not trying to be hostile here however, I really do believe that
Dabrowski's work would be better served in the medical community than, our
current psychology system. The theory needs years of research that can be
quantified - CT scans, MRI's, EKG's, EEG's, Biofeedback ect. to start
correlating - The body does A it results in B. Dabrowski's work would be well
served in the Nueroscience community.

   I do not think it is by mere chance, with a nod to the levels of variance that
do exist in this population, that the theory works. I also do not believe that
within all of people dealing with multi-levelness that there is not perhaps,
some structural commonality.

   Also, Jim, I agree with you on the CYA principle of not getting sued. Many
people would have an issue with the risk. However, I have an intution here that
those of us with multi-levelness issues - seek out precisely, TPD tools. I
cannot speak for any of you however, weekly therapy does little more for me than
waste my time. I am one of those people that goes in with a problem, needs a new
tool box and, in three or so weeks when I have learned how to use the tools
properly - do not need to keep sitting in there. My department and the
counseling department - have encouraged all of us as students of Psych, to
understand some people need only 2-6 sessions while others may need years. So
the system is slowly evolving in that direction.

   As for traditional therapy - I too had that expeirence. Also on the upside, I
also got onto a path of DIY.

    As for the Toyota analogy - OK I agree with you that people are complex but
unilevel people...they are predictable. They do what they have been taught to
do. That is why Behavioural Modification works on them. We understand the
learning process because we have observed it. Quantified it. Qualified it.

     The problem from the therapist stand point is, trying to figure out what
they have been taught to do. It is a pattern recognition issue. And beyond the
problem of getting sued because of a mis-judgement, there are peoples lives
involved. And for me at least, that is the larger issue. Am I willing to risk
someone's life on a gutt hunch?

Holly


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive  gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=P\
ID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill -

    In response too your question, "Finally, I hesitate to ask this question lest
it be considered hostile but I

think it's a legitimate question -- can a unilevel therapist be of any help

at all to a multilevel client?"

    I think in some cases it is possible. I have found a unilevel therapist whom
practices Transpersonal Jungain Psychology in our department to be helpful once
in awhile in terms of organization of goals, a source for materials I can look
up and work with and, without also being hostile, "gifted" issues. She is
fantastic with giving me resources to deal with gifted issues that go well
beyond reading material.

   I have yet to come across a uni-level therapist that can be entirely helpful
with multilevel issues, however. Much to the credit of the professionals I have
worked with, they have tried and gone all out - seeing me as a human being
trying to sort myself tidy again and not a weekly paycheck yet - in some ways
they cannot seem to get where I am at. My nuerosis becomes an anxiety disorder
that might need medication, my critical view of self becomes low self-esteem,
not a critique of where I am to where I need to be, ect. I have explained to
them the issues as I see them, trying to help them bridge the gap because they
really wanted too however, in the end - they can only give me the tools they
were given. The tools they were given are not sufficent for my multi-level
issues.

   I have found Nuerologist, Nuerosciencist and, G.P's much more helpful for
multi-level issues. I get sick with whatever, my doctor is sharp one and starts
asking me all kinds of questions. How stressed out are you? Are you sorting
through emotional issues again? Have you been meditating regularly? Taking your
vitamins? Sleeping at least 8 hours? Eatting decently? ect. My Nuerologist is
rather the same way. It is my Nuerologist whom I was orginally seeing for
Cluster headaches and Night Terror's - whom told me that my CNS is "very active"
all the time.

    My old family physician believed that could be a correlation to my fibro and
my "over-active" nervous system. I have asked other doctors about the
possibility and my current physican said something to the effect that I am
running my car non-stop, putting the petro in while it is running, oil changes
while it is running - and I wonder why my poor car is complaining?...

      The problem with this is, most doctors only take 10 or 15 minutes to see
you. They are not getting the whole picture. Many do not have the time to spend
with people on this level.

    So, I do not think the issue with professionals out there is rather or not
they are uni-level or multi-level as much as it is how they were taught to be
therapist. They were not given the tools they need to hand to those of us who
need them. They were taught to treat "the population" - singular mind-set.

     Given Dabrowski's work, an opportunity to understand it from an intellectual
level (yes, this has it's own issues) and, some tools to work with - they could
develop the skills the need to at least point us to a road map.

     However, I agree with you that they are not capable of fully getting there
with the client. Which brings me to another question. Can a therapist that is
fully in the wrath of their own multi-level issues deal with their clients day
in and day out? Transference, Counter-Transference, ect. Can they see the forest
through the trees at that point? How did Dabrowski deal with those issues?

     Holly


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with Messenger straight from your Hotmail inbox.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=P\
ID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_4:092009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier" <btillier@...>
wrote:

[...]

  This would mean we
> are looking for a therapist who has overcome ego through subject object and
> therefore who is extremely humble, authentic and sincere, a therapist who
> has some appreciation for what the client is in for in terms of positive
> disintegration, a therapist who is supportive yet takes a secondary role.
> That all seems like a tall order these days.

For this and other reasons, I fret that without solid education institution
backing over a long run, it will be difficult for TPD notions to all be used as
a package without the ideational "cherry picking" that folks here complain
about.

> it may seem futile but see what you can rise to in meeting this
> challenge -- although it may not seem like it now, this challenge is part of
> your growth -- when the storm is over, you will be in a different place and
> you may be a different person -- you will have to resume your old course,
> or, you will have to plot a new course -- once the storm is over you may
> have to reconsider your destination, you may want to go somewhere else -- I
> can't help you steer your boat I can only be here with you during the
> roughest times -- if you feel you must jump overboard, let's take a break
> and go below for a rest.

I completely agree, but I think in most scenarios like this you're unfortunately
looking at prescription of advanced tranquilizers and anti-depressant
medications along with more traditional ego-based counseling.  I think that the
therapist must necessarily have the sense and intuition to first accurately
judge the client's ability to handle auto-management before going down a TPD
path.  There are a lot of liabilities if an incorrect judgement is made.

Again I can't speak from formal education on the topic, but sure enough I had
psychotherapy in late-adolescence for a while to handle the psychoneuroses at
the time, and I vividly recall how that went. The strong upside is that it did
set me on a course to self-study the issues even though the therapist didn't
promote that.

[...]
> Likewise, when we think
> of psychotherapy as a service, overall, it is a mess. I can take my Toyota
> to any Toyota garage in North America and get exceptional consistent and
> proper service -- yet if I walked into six different therapist's offices I
> would get vastly different approaches, diagnoses, opinions, levels of
> concern, advice as to what to do, etc. It seems like a mess to me.

The fundamental issue here is that your Toyota is a predictable machine. It is
very complicated these days, and like all complex machines it surely has a few
bugs.  But it's much more set and predictable than a person.
--
Jim

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tillier" <btillier@...>
wrote:
>
> Personality Development: Continuity and Change Over the Life Course
>
> Dan P. McAdams and Bradley D. Olson

[...]

> 7. As dispositional traits show normative trends toward greater maturity from
adolescence to middle adulthood, goals and narratives show an increasing concern
with commitments to family, civic involvement, and productive activities aimed
at promoting the next generation.

This all can take an infinite variety of forms, so I hope these two academics
don't get snagged only with statistically typical scenarios.
--
Jim

--- In dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com, Josh Shaine <jshaine@...>
wrote:
>
> What might veil overexcitibilities, causing them to be less of a factor for an
extended period of time?
>
> More narrowly, psychomotor? What might cause it to be invisible for years and
then seem to manifest in a late adolescent?
>
> I'm interested in the broader, not just the narrower, but the narrower is more
of the moment.

Speaking from my life experience, I'd say that it's likely not possible to
continuously manifest a whole spectrum of excitabilities equally in the face of
intense life transitions such as in adolescence. Life experiences in any given
period likely filter which excitabilities can practically and meaningfully be
expressed. But again, I speak only from experience and not from formal study.
Plus I haven't read through the whole DVD yet.

In this light I realize that for all time way beyond adolescence I've
deliberately chosen a semi-ascetic low consumption lifestyle that in the long
run has controlled the number and intensity of those "filters".  I didn't have a
forefront framework for this trait until discovering Dabrowski, of whom I'm now
a fan.
--
Jim

What might veil overexcitibilities, causing them to be less of a factor for an
extended period of time?

More narrowly, psychomotor? What might cause it to be invisible for years and
then seem to manifest in a late adolescent?

I'm interested in the broader, not just the narrower, but the narrower is more
of the moment.

Josh Shaine

Personality Development: Continuity and Change Over the Life Course

Dan P. McAdams and Bradley D. Olson

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100507

SUMMARY POINTS

1. As it develops over the human life course, personality may be viewed as a
constellation of

dispositional traits (the person as actor), characteristic adaptations (the
person as agent),

and integrative life stories (the person as author) situated in time and
culture.

2. Early temperament dimensions gradually develop into the dispositional
traits observed

in adulthood through complex, dynamic, and multileveled interactions between
genes

and environments over time.

3. Whereas it is difficult to show especially strong associations between
personality ratings

in childhood and corresponding dispositional trait scores in adulthood
(though some

longitudinal associations have been documented), temporal stability for
individual differences

in traits increases over the life course, reaching impressively high levels
in the

middle-adult years.

4. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that mean-level scores for
most traits subsumed

within the broad categories of conscientiousness and agreeableness increase,
and

neuroticism decreases, from adolescence through late middle age.

5. Motives, goals, and related characteristic adaptations emerge as salient
features of personality

in middle childhood. Over the life course, the content, structure,
organization,

and pursuit of goals may change to reflect normative and idiosyncratic
shifts in the social

ecology of daily life.

6. In late adolescence and young adulthood, individuals typically begin to
reconstruct the

autobiographical past and imagine the future to develop an internalized life
story, or

narrative identity, that provides their life with a modicum of meaning and
purpose. In

personality development, life stories are layered over goals and motives,
which are layered

over dispositional traits.

7. As dispositional traits show normative trends toward greater maturity
from adolescence

to middle adulthood, goals and narratives show an increasing concern with
commitments

to family, civic involvement, and productive activities aimed at promoting
the next generation.

In midlife, redemptive life narratives tend to support generativity and
psychosocial

adaptation.

8. From late midlife through old age, personality development may reveal a
plateau and

eventual descent, as trait scores show some negative reversals, goals focus
more on maintenance

of the self and coping with loss, and life narratives express an inexorable
decline

in the power of self-authorship.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi there. Josh raises an interesting point about the view of the therapist.
I was dreaming about this last night -- incredible clients call for ultra---
credible therapists. Notice I didn't say incredible therapists because
that's just what we don't want -- we don't need the therapist who wears the
Superman cape.

Don't forget, traditional therapies focus on reintegrating and supporting
the ego whereas here a major focus of positive disintegration is overcoming
and transforming the ego through subject object. One's ego does not
disappear, rather, it shifts focus from subject to object and we see
ourselves now in relation to the other and to the world. So, in a
Dabrowskian approach the therapist has to be very disciplined not to boost
the client's ego. What kind of therapist are we looking for? It would be
nice if the therapist was one step ahead of the client. This would mean we
are looking for a therapist who has overcome ego through subject object and
therefore who is extremely humble, authentic and sincere, a therapist who
has some appreciation for what the client is in for in terms of positive
disintegration, a therapist who is supportive yet takes a secondary role.
That all seems like a tall order these days.

Here's an analogy for you. The client is sailing a yacht and a therapist is
standing beside her at the wheel. A hurricane blows up and the boat is
caught in the middle of the perfect storm. The client can barely hold the
wheel and turns to the therapist for help. But the therapist must resist (as
Marlene says the hardest thing to do is to do nothing when there is nothing
to be done) and keep his hands off the wheel because this is the client's
challenge. Now the therapist is not powerless, the therapist can say to the
client -- hey this is quite a storm -- you're gonna get blown off course --
hang on tight -- this will test your character -- it may get worse before it
gets better -- it can't last forever -- for now, your chart and compass are
useless -- it may seem futile but see what you can rise to in meeting this
challenge -- although it may not seem like it now, this challenge is part of
your growth -- when the storm is over, you will be in a different place and
you may be a different person -- you will have to resume your old course,
or, you will have to plot a new course -- once the storm is over you may
have to reconsider your destination, you may want to go somewhere else -- I
can't help you steer your boat I can only be here with you during the
roughest times -- if you feel you must jump overboard, let's take a break
and go below for a rest.



On this final point, why is all this so important? Because the stakes are so
high -- the therapist cannot ignore the risk of suicide. -- in 2006, suicide
was the third cause of mortality in Americans between 15 and 24 -- the
suicide rate in 15 to 19-year-olds is about eight per hundred thousand, and
in 20 to 24-year-olds it is 12.5 per hundred thousand in the general
population. There has been a long debate about suicide and gifted, some
suggest gifted is a risk factor for suicide others say no. The key point is
the therapist cannot ignore the risk and needs to be very articulate in
communication with the client -- it's so sad that we see cases of suicide
where no one takes any responsibility. If the lines of communication are
open and the therapist is awake, then the therapist has a more likely chance
of knowing the client is suicidal and taking that into account. Dabrowski
was most concerned about this aspect and advocated that if the heat was too
hot to handle the client should take a break.



I've had a lot of interaction with the healthcare system. Echoing Jim, It's
really sad that I can take my cat to the vet and get better service than I
can receive as a patient in the healthcare system. Likewise, when we think
of psychotherapy as a service, overall, it is a mess. I can take my Toyota
to any Toyota garage in North America and get exceptional consistent and
proper service -- yet if I walked into six different therapist's offices I
would get vastly different approaches, diagnoses, opinions, levels of
concern, advice as to what to do, etc. It seems like a mess to me. Thanks,
Bill.





From: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Shaine
Sent: December 5, 2009 5:10 PM
To: dabrowskidiscussiongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [dabrowskidiscussiongroup] RE Article: Emotional life and
psychotherapy of the gifted





>
> Finally, I hesitate to ask this question lest it be
> considered hostile but I think it's a legitimate question -- can a
unilevel
> therapist be of any help at all to a multilevel client? Thanks, Bill.

Skipping the rest of the article and response for the moment (if not,
perhaps, forever), I thought I would take a brief shot at this one.

The key to therapy is the client. For all the same reasons that
auto-psychotherapy can work, a unilevel therapist can be of help, and then a
few more.

Even a unilevel therapist can ask useful questions.

If the therapist has to grandiose a view of his/her role, that can be
problematic. And if the client is present against his/her will, then a
unilevel therapist has next to no chance to do much - but even a multi-level
therapist is up against it with an unwilling client.

Josh Shaine





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]