From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: MOL [From Tim Carey (980827.1735)]
Date: 8/27/98
< The topic of lying may also have something worthwhile to look
< at. If a person lies, then they are aware of something which they don't want
< another person to know about. Doesn't it imply awareness at a higher level?
very, very interesting and knotty issue. This seems to one of the main
defects of Freudian thought..the paradox of self-deception. I would think a
hierarchical approach would be very different as there is no "self" at any
level. I have thought about this, but no fruit so far.
>> Instead of "passively" questioning the person--which could lead to the
>> global/local contrast, rather than up--ask a question directed to the
>>level just above what its being currently discussed. For example, i would
>>consider the "pattern" of your client's to be at the program level. Since
the
>> principle level is hypothetically right above the program level, ask how
>> W fits in to the principle level in such a way that W's answers CANNOT
fit,
>>but W+1's do.
>This is an interesting perspective Isaac and one I wouldn't mind giving a
>try. Can you be a bit more specific with your suggestion? What do the "W's"
>refer to?
W was used as a shorthand for "the pattern". W is perceptual as ex post facto
W is being described and sucessfully controlled. What is the exact form of W
is irrelevant in the MOL; what is relevant is W's relation to the higher order
perception , W+1, that varies the reference of W. To get him up there stop
asking questions that can be answered at the lower level. If i ask you what
color are your eyes, you cannot meaningfully say "oval" or "fast". Same in
the other direction. How you do that is for MOL engineers to find out, i.e.
you. I don't know how to implement it.
The woman wants help with her children but doesn't like people telling her what
to do.
I assume that you gave her a brief explanation of the way MOL works. This could
be presented as a method in which she discovers what to do. The role of the
therapist is to simply help the discovery process.
One topic to explore: Tell me what it is like when people tell you what to do.
Another topic to explore: Tell me what it is like when you tell your children
what to do. Another possible topic to explore: Talk about what it is like to
have identical twins. Another possible topic is: Talk about times when you
were pleased with the way your children were behaving.
I think you have to be patient and get to know the person more completely. I
assume that you have taken a history on this woman. The Life Perception Survey
is a quick way to do this. Recall that it basically mentions an area of a
person's life, say marriage, and asks a person if things are going OK in this
area. Those areas which are identified as not OK can be the target of the
MOL For example, if marriage was not OK, you could say: Let's do the MOL
with the topic of your marriage. Talk about your marriage. When and if the
woman makes "up a level" comments, you could point this out to her. This way
she could develop a sense of what the MOL is about, what background stuff is
about.
By not using the MOL all the time, it becomes special when you do use it. So,
I would suggest talking to the woman to identify problem areas in her life for
her. This can be done through ordinary conversation. In the process of doing
this, you could point out when she makes "up a level" comments. Just so she
gets used to it. This way, when you do the MOL with her, she is somewhat
skilled and knowledgeable and can be more successful when she does it.
I think that if we overuse the MOL, if we don't properly prepare the person,
that we run the risk of not getting the full benefit of the MOL.
Timothy A Carey wrote:
···
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: MOL [From Tim Carey (980827.2040)]
Date: 8/27/98
[From Tim Carey (980827.2040)]
I had another session today with the woman who has the troublesome 3 year
old twins and has had significant problems in the past. I really felt that
this session didn't go very well at all in terms of MOL. It didn't seem
that there was any "going up" at all and I found it hard to find any real
focus. There did seem to be times when she would talk about the idea that
she was constantly being told what to do by others and she didn't like that
and people had also suggested to her that she not take her children
shopping until they were older but she didn't see why she should have to go
out shopping without the children. We talked around this idea for a while
but there didn't seem to be any movement "up" at all. Perhaps my
expectations are too high. I really like David's suggestion of watching
some videos of these sessions to get another idea of what might be going
on. I probably feel like I'm at a bit of an impasse.
Why is this woman coming to see you? To cure others of doing things she
doesn't like?
She says she wants some strategies to control her kids.
Then I don't think there is much you can do for her.
Perhaps this should be made a ground rule for people who come to you for
help. You can help them to understand themselves better, and can help them
find ways to change themselves, but you can't help them control others, and
your job is not to change others to suit them. If this woman has a problem
"controlling her kids," then there is a problem between her and her kids,
and the only way to change it is to change herself. If she's satisfied with
herself, this problem will continue.
Then I don't think there is much you can do for her.
Perhaps this should be made a ground rule for people who come to you for
help. You can help them to understand themselves better, and can help
them
find ways to change themselves, but you can't help them control others,
and
your job is not to change others to suit them. If this woman has a
problem
"controlling her kids," then there is a problem between her and her kids,
and the only way to change it is to change herself. If she's satisfied
with
herself, this problem will continue.
Thanks for this Bill. It's interesting, I was just thinking today that
perhaps MOL isn't appropriate for this problem. I had kind of sensed that
most of the problem with this case was _my_ internal conflict. One of the
subjects I did last semester was a parenting subject which was heavy on
behaviourism. It was basically animal training tarted up a bit. The
expectation of my supervisor is that I will use this information with this
woman. My conflict is that I really want to help this woman but I would
feel dishonest to teach her these skills. Perhaps clarfiying with her what
you mention above might be a way to sort some of this out.
Of course maybe she wants some other things, too.
And this is probably the heart of the problem for me. I have a sense that
these "other things" are probably more crucial to her than gaining control
of her kids and if these other things were different then the "control of
her kids" problem might seem different too.
I guess I've been persisting with MOL because every now and then she lets a
little bit of the other things slip out so it seems that these are the real
issues.
Or I might just be trying to justify what I'm doing ....
<There did seem to be times when she would talk about the idea that
she was constantly being told what to do by others and she didn't like that
and people had also suggested to her that she not take her children
shopping until they were older but she didn't see why she should have to go
out shopping without the children. We talked around this idea for a while
but there didn't seem to be any movement "up" at all.>
I have been enjoying your attempts for applying MOL. I have had little
time to post, even though I would like to.
In this case, you might have asked, "When you see people shopping without
their kids, do you think they have a reason? Might, for them, this be a
better way to shop? Can you think of any benefits of shopping without
toting along the kids? Could there be anything better the kids would
prefer to do than go shopping with their mother?
To me, these type of questions would help your patient see her behavior
from a bird's eye view -- a higher level. Why would or would not certain
people shop with their kids?
If she could see a difference, perhaps she could understand that there are
different reasons depending upon the conditions. Someone who tells her not
to shop with her children is foolish can't possibly know what is best for
her. Or, there may be an advantage. It is up to your patient to decide
which approach is best under different conditions. Ask her if she sees
that she can act whichever way decides and if others see it different for
them or her, it doesn't really matter. She can control her own perceptions
about shopping with her kids. In fact, it is no one elses job at all. She
is responsible to act to get what she wants.
If she agrees but can't decide when it would be good and when it would be
bad for her to shop with the kids, it would be time to ask if she wants any
help from you to make that easier. I would hope that quickly she would
assume responsibility for controlling her own perceptions without any help
or interference from others.
I've really appreciated everyone's comments regarding my MOL work recently.
I think David's comments regarding preparing the client are really
important. It has just occurred to me, however (it takes me a while to get
things sometimes), that perhaps the most important preparation for the MOL
process is some explanation about the kind of relationship that exists
between client and therapist in MOL type therapy and tied in with this is
some preparation about what my expectations as a therapist will be in MOL
sessions.
It is the case with all my clients at the moment that they have all seen
various therapists (including psychiatrists, psychologists, hypnotists,
etc.) for various amounts of time prior to seeing me. It is probably fair
to say that because they are seeing me, whatever problems they have were
not resolved in their previous therapeutic experiences and they undoubtedly
have their own individual expectations about my role and the therapeutic
experience in general. One of the women I'm seeing started off by saying "I
hope I don't fail with you like I failed all the other therapists".
Bill has often raised the issue that trust is a fundamental requirement of
doing the MOL and I think this may be at the heart of some of the
difficulty I'm experiencing. If you have an expectation that your therapist
will judge or devalue what you are thinking or even suggest or advise
different things to think then this probably influences to a large degree
the bits of information that you decide to disclose.
My current thinking is that I need to spend much more time explaining to my
clients what I see my role as and what the MOL process is about. I also
like the idea that has been raised (by Mary and Bill primarily) that MOL
may not be for everyone. I think I'll try presenting it as a therapeutic
option and allow the clients to decide the direction they would like their
therapeutic experience to take. This seems to be more in line with MOL as
well.
The problem with limiting yourself to verbally expressed comments about
the topic as the possible basis of background stuff is that this is not
the only way people comment on foreground topics.
If I see a person looking and acting angry when they are taking about a
topic, but they do not/cannot express it verbally("I am angry"), I still
think of this as a background comment. Some part of the person is angry
when the person talks about the topic.
In the case of the age 54 man I recently did the MOL with, when talking
about the topic of his Uncle luring him into homosexual activity when
the patient was age 12, he sounded calm, but his muscle tension in his
hands were so tight that he caused his hand to start bleeding. When he
saw this, he realized how angry he really was when talking about this
topic.
I don't think that we have to take an all or nothing attitude towards
the MOL. We can use it sometimes with many cases. I do think it is
important to explain it, because the therapist mode of interaction is
much different: Much more listening and less talking on the part of the
therapist, more willing to switch topics before the topic is completely
discussed.
All therapies are based on the patient trusting the therapist. I doubt
that the MOL is different in this respect.
Timothy A Carey wrote:
···
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: MOL [From Tim Carey (980830.0915)]
Date: 8/29/98
[From Tim Carey (980830.0915)]
I've really appreciated everyone's comments regarding my MOL work recently.
I think David's comments regarding preparing the client are really
important. It has just occurred to me, however (it takes me a while to get
things sometimes), that perhaps the most important preparation for the MOL
process is some explanation about the kind of relationship that exists
between client and therapist in MOL type therapy and tied in with this is
some preparation about what my expectations as a therapist will be in MOL
sessions.
It is the case with all my clients at the moment that they have all seen
various therapists (including psychiatrists, psychologists, hypnotists,
etc.) for various amounts of time prior to seeing me. It is probably fair
to say that because they are seeing me, whatever problems they have were
not resolved in their previous therapeutic experiences and they undoubtedly
have their own individual expectations about my role and the therapeutic
experience in general. One of the women I'm seeing started off by saying "I
hope I don't fail with you like I failed all the other therapists".
Bill has often raised the issue that trust is a fundamental requirement of
doing the MOL and I think this may be at the heart of some of the
difficulty I'm experiencing. If you have an expectation that your therapist
will judge or devalue what you are thinking or even suggest or advise
different things to think then this probably influences to a large degree
the bits of information that you decide to disclose.
My current thinking is that I need to spend much more time explaining to my
clients what I see my role as and what the MOL process is about. I also
like the idea that has been raised (by Mary and Bill primarily) that MOL
may not be for everyone. I think I'll try presenting it as a therapeutic
option and allow the clients to decide the direction they would like their
therapeutic experience to take. This seems to be more in line with MOL as
well.
The problem with limiting yourself to verbally expressed comments about
the topic as the possible basis of background stuff is that this is not
the only way people comment on foreground topics.
I couldn't agree more. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I only
focus on verbal comments.
I don't think that we have to take an all or nothing attitude towards
the MOL. We can use it sometimes with many cases. I do think it is
important to explain it, because the therapist mode of interaction is
much different: Much more listening and less talking on the part of the
therapist, more willing to switch topics before the topic is completely
discussed.
Again, my take on MOL is different and these different opinions are
important I think with a process we know so little about.
All therapies are based on the patient trusting the therapist. I doubt
that the MOL is different in this respect.
I had another session tonight with the woman who has anger problems. I
started the session by explaining that there were a couple of different
ways we could do therapy. I outlined both a skills based approach and an
MOL approach. She said that she had been to lots of other therapists who
had tried to teach her skills and they'd never worked for very long so
she'd go with the other approach.
Rather than her just talking for large chunks of time this time I found
myself interjecting with questions. For example at one point she said she
felt vulnerable and I then asked her what she meant by that, what
particular situations did she feel vulnerable in, what did feeling
vulnerable feel like to her, etc., etc.
The general flow of the session seemed to be that she would spend some time
talking about an issue and then when I'd ask "What do you think about ..."
she seemed to be able to go up a couple of levels quite easily. We chat
about that for a while and then she'd go on to another issue.
She got to the stage tonight where she thought that using her thyroid
problem as the reason for her mood swings was a cop out. While she thought
it might have something to do with it she thought she also had a lot of
control over her temper. She realised that she expected situations to turn
out badly and then they often did and she talked about her feelings of
inadequacy and the unreasonably high standards she had of others around
her.
By the end of the session she said that she felt the session had been
really helpful and that things had begun to change.
This is to Jim Wuwert. How about an update, Jim, on how things have
sorted themselves out for you?
For me, I have just come to the conclusion that making abortion legal or illegal is really not the point of what I want. What I want is for people to stop having abortions. I accept that I do not and cannot control whether people do that or not. There was an article on our local news website today about abortion. The headline was misleading because they said that abortions have decreased overall–this due to a decrease in the population of the subgroup that tends to have the most abortions. With some subgroups the abortion rate increased. It is still a problem. 1.2 million abortions were committed in a single year. That is alot in my mind.
I don’t think focusing on making it illegal will really get us where I want it to go. I would like for 1.2 million to be zero. I think it is a larger task than just passing a piece of legislation–much like this financial meltdown that is taking place in this country. I think that as I focused on passing a law that created more conflict–but when I was able to step back and reflect on what I really wanted (eliminating abortions to zero), I then realized that this is so much bigger than a law.
For me, I see the conflict different. I think the pro-choice and pro-life people would benefit by stepping back and thinking about what they would really like in regards to abortion. I think deep down both sides want a reduction in the abortion rate and I think both would like to see it eliminated altogether. But, when we characterize each other as pro-choice or pro-life we really do not get anywhere. Meanwhile others are out contributing to the abortion rate while we are fighting with each other. Sounds like a lose/lose to me.
My resolution is let’s see what we can do to reduce this rate and let’s reevaluate our efforts every so often so we can make adjustments that will work and produce results that get us closer to zero. We may not ever hit zero, but why not try. To me trying to reduce the rate is much more important than passing a law. Just because I passed a law does not mean I actually tried to reduce the rate, which is what I really want.
All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
My congratulations and great appreciation to both Jim and Bill for this very
informative, productive, and inspiring exchange.
I completely agree. Jim's last post (2008.09.23.1604) was wonderful.
Very articulate and insightful. He not only went up a level but he
knew he did and he was able to describe it clearly. Thanks Jim!
Now that Bill has gotten Jim to see that he and I are aligned on the
abortion issue (we both don't want them to happen so want to see
policies implemented that will help move us toward that goal) I wonder
if he could work on the tax and spend thing. Do you think it's
possible to get Jim or me to a place where we could agree on that
issue?
My congratulations and great
appreciation to both Jim and Bill for this very informative, productive,
and inspiring exchange.
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.24.1639 MDT)]
Mike Acree (2008.09.24.1340 PDT)
···
–
You’re welcome.
I hope that onlookers got some hints about how this up-a-level business
works. One of the main things you have to learn is to have faith in the
explorer’s reorganizing system. It really is there and it really does
work if you give it a chance. The old methods of therapy really do get in
the way a lot of the time, as Tim Carey puts it. Advising, interpreting,
diagnosing, directing, challenging all burden the explorer with
responsibility to the therapist and bring the therapist to the center of
attention instead of the person seeking help.
The point of all this, of course, is for others to see how they get along
when they try to do the same thing with other people. Jim, did you learn
anything about ways to interact with others who are having disagreements?
Did any of you others who were listening in? I really recommend trying it
out; you’ll be amazed at what happens. It doesn’t have to be thought of
as “therapy” – it’s really just exploring to see what is
there, exploring while ready to follow up whatever is found, without
expecting anything in particular.
I’m reminded of Robert Pirsig and some of the beautiful passages in Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. “I’m listening to this person
and asking questions to find out what’s behind the words. I don’t want
the person to get somewhere and I don’t want the person to not get
somewhere. I’m just listening and asking and moving down this long empty
road.”
Try it and you will see that the explorer takes care of everything
else.
