[Jason Gosnell (2005.02.16.2005CST)]
This are some issues on neurosis–to include narcissism (or maybe just “growth disorder”) Karen Horney’s work, Zen and PCT (in some way I think). I wanted to see if anyone has any input or responses from a PCT perspective…this may be too much info for getting responses, but I thought I’d try it out…it is in the usually regarded wishy-washy rhetoric of the clinical person.
In Buddhism, the Sanskrit word “dukkha” is often translated as “suffering” but it literally means “a wheel’s axel that is stuck.” I suspect that the original intention of Buddha (I am projecting I know–wishful thinking?–but this may be somewhat true) was to help people get free from rigidified notions of self that interfered with living fully, with growing and developing. Mostly this seems to relate to an unrealistic, glorified sense of self as conceptualized that becomes rigid and inflexible. Zen Buddhism is more intimate with this notion.
Karen Horney says that there are 3 basic tendencies that we use to cope with stress or get our needs met…a self-effacing approach (the tendency to move towards–also called “the appeal of love”), a detached or resigned approach (to move away from–also called “the appeal of freedom”), and an “expansive” or antisocial-narcissistic approach (to move against–also called “the appeal of mastery”).
A neurotic tends to favor one over the others–reminds me of defensive oversimplification as stated by T. Kora–I want one approach I can always rely on. I adopt one at the expense of other moves–at the expense ultimately of flexibility and developing a broad repertoire for action and getting needs met. So, I only have a 7 iron in my golf bag or I go to that club in too many instances where other clubs are needed. My self-concept may be largely organized around a predominant tendency for whatever reasons. This oversimplification is likely composed of, as usual, the combined and synergized genetic contributions and the environmental contributions. It is also a response it seems that is born out of past suffering to some degree and a desire to meet human needs.
For now, it seems that when needs are not met there are error signals—emotional disturbance, physiological reactions, thoughts about what is going on perhaps, etc. But, in a sense some of these needs are in fact unrealistic and-or have developed to support a thought-based or superficial structure of self–not that this is wrong–I see that we have a self-concept due to our capacity to think reflectively about ourselves and construct ourselves, in a sense, through thought based on our experience. Socially, it seems that this is an inevitable factor for us to live with to some degree. To Horney it seems that a neurotic need (neurotic claims she calls them) is a kind of superficial overlay on real needs which serves to maintain a self-structure. It is a part of one figuring out how to meet their needs in their development given their environment, genetic contributions, etc. The sense of self erected in neurosis (which is basically an inevitable aspect of the human condition I think) is composed of claims about how I and the world should be and taboos on behavior that serve to undermine this glorified sense of self—that is, actions, thoughts or whatever that undermine the sense of self are tabooed. Like a monk over-identifying with this role and punishing himself for having sexual thoughts. Or a CEO who may be caught up in his role and punishing himself or others (more likely) for his not knowing the answer to some problem and thinking he was made to look bad in public. It depends on his taboos and glorified sense of self-concept of course.
So, there are errors when a neurotic need or claim like this is not met…I don’t get the experience I am wanting…examples of neurotic needs (which are better described as claims on top of basic needs—to me anyway) “everyone should approve of me”, “I should always be in good health”’ “I should always be able to protect myself from ridicule”, “I should be the perfect listener,” or “I should always be interesting to others or never at a loss for words” or as silly as " I should be able to read continuously without being distracted", “I should never feel embarrassed in front of others.” (For now, I think that these claims are a reaction to deeper experiences of aversion or pleasure–we make policies on a self-concept level in order to avoid or get certain experiences). Perhaps the need to simply connect to others becomes “everyone should approve of me”, the need to be safe becomes “I should always be able to protect myself from ridicule”, the need to achieve may be “I should always be able to read without being distracted” or “I shouldn’t need so much preparation time for these reports.”
Horney suggests that when these neurotic needs are not met the reactions (error signals) may be even more severe
than when basic needs are not met. She talks about a woman who believed that she should always be able to predict the future collapsing on the floor when she was not able to assess that a friend’s new lover might be the type to use violence. It wasn’t that her friend was injured, but that the woman thought that she should be able to predict these things. She lapsed into an episode of self-hatred following this…the self hatred being the difference between the actual and what “should” be. Once she congratulated a neurotic patient for fixing herself breakfast and the woman appeared horrified—wasn’t she just being selfish the patient may have thought of herself? For the expansive tendency, the hatred tends to gets externalized onto others. The reaction can be likened to an earthquake—when a taboo or claim is not met the plates of self are shifting and on the surface aspects of self as conceptualized are re-organizing or being destroyed. If I cling to this surface movement—if I am only hanging on the surface—I feel that I–my whole self—is being destroyed or at least is in turmoil. But, one can prevent this process using denial, minimization, and blame–that is, one can repair the glorified sense of self by diminishing their contact with the facts as they are (with aspects of experience)…this is the hallmark of maintaining a “growth disorder.” It may be OK in the short term, but as an ongoing response to turn away from facts can be a real problem. One hypothesis is that one does not prevent the process in authentic living—in fact, one may get into welcoming the process as uncomfortable as it may be. One may slow it down a bit, go step by step when possible, but growth inevitably occurs. Anyway, realizations take time to come to however they come.
In PCT, can these issues of growth and resistance to growth be corrected as it were by the person paying more attention to the actual conditions they are faced with and simply repeated experimentations—“try and see” as they say? It seems that this is the way, coupled with the awareness approach. So, a glorified sense of self may break down or be transformed or mature into a more complete understanding of self…and/or the so-called “self system” becomes more pliable, flexible, and adaptable based on one’s willingness to pay attention in a new way. (Perhaps this willingness is born out of suffering or great error signals…I don’t know for sure.) Here I am referring to Horney’s comment that neurotics tend to ignore “conditions.” They don’t observe and study conditions very well and tend to lapse into an idealized view of how things “should” be. As Dick R. mentions in his book on EGO STAT—a person may underestimate or misunderstand the amount of training that one goes through to become a great dancer or tennis player–this is ignoring conditions. They basically deny how things are or how things develop. They (we and everyone to some degree I imagine) are unwilling to “not-know” and to look into things to try to understand them. Since we must know, we grab after the first thing that enters our mind—usually our own claims or shoulds about how things “should” be.
For Kora
(this is a Japanese Morita therapist now deceased) part of the cure for neurosis is a willingness to “not-know”, when you don’t know…to accept that fact—then you can study and look into conditions in order to develop an understanding. For this, awareness must arise and scan what is presenting itself now. Some Gestalt Therapy people have noted that the space of not-knowing has a kind of vitality to it that the neurotic lacks—it is not a resigned posture (like I don’t know who cares), but an awake one, like a child observing and manipulating an object. Just that attitude or posture is already a bit at odds with the neurotic’s “expert’s mind” which in Zen is a dead mind. In fact, the whole intent of Zen is to develop the not-knowing mind. A further issue here though seems to be that the neurotic lacks the inward self-support to be willing to not-know and rest there for a moment—he in fact has little contact with himself, feelings, needs, desires, etc. and any true values or he has not really developed any. So, there is an absence of maturation in some ways. I believe the intent of meditation is to develop more inward contact and self-support. That is, a greater ability to not-know and then look into things from this position.
Any ideas on these issues?
Regards…Jason Gosnell
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and delete or destroy all copies of this message.