Leslie

[from Mary Powers 9901.05]

John Appel:

I'm glad you finally got logged on - was there something wrong with the
instructions I sent to you?

Thanks for posting Leslie's story. I have a few comments which I want to
make clear are indeed comments, not criticism. They have to do with the
compatibility (or lack thereof) of your comments and interpretations with
those of PCT-based therapy, the Method of Levels (MOL)

1) "The CSG may not realize that perceptual control is necessary for sanity."

I think this is well understood, at least implicitly. To be unable to
control one's perceptions means never being able to bring them to their
reference states, which means being in a very unhealthy and painful state of
chronic error.

The main reason for being unable to control perceptions is having opposing
reference signals demanding that the perception be in two different states
at once - conflict. I suspect that people who are angry about being
dependent and unable to do anything about it are unable because they are
terrified of being autonomous. Everybody starts out in life being
dependent, and most become autonomous as they mature. Leslie seems to have
been denied dependency when she needed it and denied autonomy when she was
ready for that - a nice Catch-22 which left her in conflict.

2) Leslie said "Did my father tell you about their not bringing me up? And
you answer "Yes, he did tell me".

I'm wondering about this because although I understand you have the
rationale of supporting her autonomy, you have chosen to do it by lying to
her. Her father did not tell you anything of the kind. Perhaps you felt he
"told" you this by implication, but I don't buy it. It's a bit risky to
"validate" by fudging the truth - what would happen if she found out?

In PCT therapy, MOL, the kind of answer that people are learning to do is
focussed on going up a level - not confirming a statement at the same level
(whether or not by a lie). For example: It's important to you for me to
know that. Or, you want me to have heard that from your father. Or...
Obviously there is nothing wrong with sticking to the same level until you
get a good feel for the next level, but the heart and soul of MOL (and we
hypothesize ALL therapies) is getting up to the next level...and the next...

3) You seem to be quite eclectic in your approach, drawing from
psychoanalysis (transference) and behavioral approaches (rewards). Maybe
MOL will make sense to you if I say it seems to me that just when you say
"our relationship, the father-transference, had begun", is just when she
shows every evidence of having gone up a level - she says her main fear is
that when she tells you things you will say there is nothing the matter; she
says "it's so amazing when you listen to me".

And when you talk of rewarding her, it seems to me that while you might draw
the analogy of giving a pellet to a deprived and hungry rat, and feel ok
about it because you were not the depriver in the first place, reward is a
very controlling concept - just what you want to free her from. You do not
want her to become dependent on your reward, your good opinion of her; you
are trying to provide an environment in which her actions truly affect her
perceptions as she needs them affected. Which is what those of us who do
MOL try to achieve.

I get the feeling that transference _is_ dependence on the rewarder. Isn't
the end game of this type of therapy to wean the patient from transference,
from needing that reward from the therapist? Does the idea of not getting
into a transference situation in the first place sound too weird?

4) "What is perceptual control. Why is it so important?

It is the essence of life to control, to resist forces and events causing
dissolution and to alter the environment to what one needs and wants it to
be. The only way to know that there is a discrepancy between what one needs
and wants and the way things are is to perceive the way things are, compare
that with the way they should be, and act to reduce the difference. This is
how a control system works, whether living, electronic, or mechanical. We
talk of _perceptual_ control in living systems to distinguish the process
from _control_ in non-living systems because a) living systems uniquely set
their own reference signals internally instead of from outside (like a
thermostat) and b) to forestall the knee-jerk reaction of some people who
think this is a mechanical, dehumanizing way to talk about people instead of
the first scientific explanation of the phenomenon of purpose.

Mary P.

From John Appel

Mary Powers

Hello. Here�s a 3rd response to your post re Leslie 1/6/99
I had not received your response to my 2nd post when I received this
one.

You seem to be quite eclectic in your approach, drawing from

psychoanalysis (transference) and behavioral approaches (rewards)>.

Yes, my approach is both psychoanalytic and behavioral. I came upon my
notions of control from the perspective of physician treating mental
disorders. I was amazed and stunned by the power �control� had to
understand and treat my patients. The theory I formed appears to differ
somewhat from PCT, at least in certain respects. But both theories are
about �control.� That is why PCT and MOL. so fascinate me.

>Maybe MOL will make sense to you if I say it seems to me that just
when you say
"our relationship, the father-transference, had begun", is just when she

shows every evidence of having gone up a level - she says her main fear
is
that when she tells you things you will say there is nothing the matter;
she
says "it's so amazing when you listen to me".>

I don�t yet understand �levels,� very well.

.>And when you talk of rewarding her, it seems to me that while you
might draw
the analogy of giving a pellet to a deprived and hungry rat, and feel ok

about it because you were not the depriver in the first place, reward is
a
very controlling concept - just what you want to free her from. You do
not
want her to become dependent on your reward, your good opinion of her;
you
are trying to provide an environment in which her actions truly affect
her
perceptions as she needs them affected. Which is what those of us who
do
MOL try to achieve.<

I do use the analogy of giving a pellet to a deprived and hungry rat. It
seems to me Leslie was deprived of dependency when she needed it, though
In Leslie's� case I would prefer . an apology to a deprived and hungry
child. It�s difficult for me to think of Leslie as a rat. I do want
Leslie to become dependent on me, but only until she is ready to become
independent. I quite agree with you, the end game is not for Leslie to
be dependent on me, or on anyone else. It is important to be clear about
the question, dependent for what? No one ever becomes independent on
others for �love.� However a person can, and should become independent
on others to make decisions for him. I suggest the definition of an
adult is-- a person who has a mind of his own and the ability to decide
for himself what he believes and does.

I am comfortable about Leslie becoming dependent on me for two reasons:
1, As you say, she, as any person, even an infant, has a powerful drive
to take control of him, or her self. The infant controls, or tries to
control its burping and sucking on the nipple. The mother, in her
anxiety, may try to force the infant to keep sucking, thus the battle
for control between mother and child is joined. At age 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
years a toddler normally goes through the �terrible twos,� referred to
above, and becomes able to choose whether to do, or not to do what his
mother tells him. He has become autonomous from her control. Similarly
when he is ready he will go through the �terrible twos� with me, his
physician, or other therapist. He becomes able to disagree or disobey
me. 2, The physician rewards the patient's autonomous behavior,
such as Leslie's decision to ask me a question, which I then rewarded by
answering. Doing so encouraged her to ask questions as a means of
getting along with me. Furthermore doing so she showed she was not
helpless--she had the power to get me to respond . And of course I
rewarded other behaviors. She could get me to listen when she talked,
for example. This amazed her because she had never been able to get
anyone, especially her father or mother, to listen to her. Eliciting
responses from me she developed a repertoire of behaviors which would
get her rewards., first from me and then from most people.

I get the feeling that transference _is_ dependence on the rewarder.

Isn't
the end game of this type of therapy to wean the patient from
transference,
from needing that reward from the therapist? Does the idea of not
getting transference seem weird?<

I believe transference cannot be avoided. Everyone expects others to
respond the way his mother, or other care givers did. Thus Leslie was
�amazed� when I behaved differently than her father. A key element of
treatment is for the patient to discover the physician responds
differently than previous care givers. I sense the above might well lend
itself to MOL.

4) >>"What is perceptual control. Why is it so important?<<.

I believe I misled the CSG when I posed this question. I was not asking
for definitions. I had read Bill Powers and many others and formed
enough understanding of PCT to make me eager to participate in CSG. What
I was doing when I posed the question was merely giving an account of
how, I myself, got interested in autonomy--control, namely my experience
treating psychotic patients who were so out of control, and who got well
when I found ways to foster their autonomy. That was when I asked
myself what autonomy was and was why it was so important?

It is the essence of life to control, to resist forces and events

causing
dissolution and to alter the environment to what one needs and wants it
to
be. The only way to know that there is a discrepancy between what one
needs
and wants and the way things are is to perceive the way things are,
compare
that with the way they should be, and act to reduce the difference.
This is
how a control system works, whether living, electronic, or mechanical.
We
talk of _perceptual_ control in living systems to distinguish the
process
from _control_ in non-living systems because a) living systems uniquely
set
their own reference signals internally instead of from outside (like a
thermostat) and b) to forestall the knee-jerk reaction of some people
who
think this is a mechanical, dehumanizing way to talk about people
instead of
the first scientific explanation of the phenomenon of purpose.>

My theory certainly agrees that the <essence of life is to control, to
resist forces causing dissolution> I would probably use the term
�psychosis� for �dissolution.� Your next comment < to alter the

leaves me unclear. I guess my theory would say a person is

not able to alter his environment.--he can merely adjust to it. Here
difference between my theory and PCT may be a semantic, perhaps not.

Thanks for your clarifying statement. It helped me understand MOL a
little better.

Yours

John Appel.

···

Subject: Leslie and Mary P
Date: Jan./11/99
From: John Appel
To: CSGnet@UIUC.edu.