And telling us we need to address our own' illogic' is just another way to pathologize those who disagree.
I strongly disagree. If someone is making invalid assumptions that "If THIS occurs, then it MUST mean THAT" (with no consideration for other evidence, factors, or interpretations) or "2+2=donkey" then it is those fallacies that should be addressed and clarified. I don't mind if someone has a different opinion than my own, or even if I'm the one found to be wrong. Sure, I may need to swallow my pride, but it is not my tendency to defend a position once it is shown to be untrue.
BKistas constantly pathologize those who disagree.
Please don't group me into your idea of BKistas. Please see me as an individual.
Take a very good look at all the posts written by The Anticult. He or she uses information with the utmost precision, breaks things down into paragraphs, clear line of reasoning.
I quoted plenty of stuff from literature written by and for mental health professionals about boundary issues and fiduciary responsibility--ethos of care. Plenty of logic in those.
Yes. I can definitely check that out and I'll be happy to discuss those points.
If you've genuinely benefitted from BK, nothing, not even our puny little website, can take that away from you.
Aw... Don't be self-effacing now. :) I don't find this website to be puny at all.
Youve invested plenty of attention, time and energy, enough to trigger and then maintain a transferance--to someone who has not been trained or licensed as a mental health professional and who would not know how to competantly handle so delicate a situation.
The way I understand transference is that it occurs when a person unconsciously dumps their emotional baggage that originated with a particular person onto someone else. Such as if a woman blames her husband for treating her abusively the way her father had. Or, if a son idolized his mother and from then on annoyingly put every potential marriage partner on a pedestal of perfection lavishing them with undue affection.
I can tell you, BK was not that for me. As for her not being a mental health professional, I never deluded myself into thinking she was. I never deluded myself into thinking she had a cure for my depression. In my mind's eye she had a system of simply inquiring into stressful thoughts. I never blindly adopted BK's points of view as gospel and absolute truth.
Way before ever coming across her, I had given up church and religion. I challenged my own preconceived notions and concepts of God, heaven, hell, salvation, etc. I form my own ideas and opinions on what feels true for me. You'll probably never see me write something like, "Well, I think this way because BK (or the Bible, or the Tao Te Ching, or my dad, or Bob Hope) says so..."
If a human being's public persona becomes linked to what psychoanalyst Orstein has termed your own 'curative fantasy'--then you've guru-ized that person. The curative fantasy is active not merely at the level of conscious awareness, but also unconsciously. When someone seems magical to us, our curative fantasy has been engaged. And...we need not meet that individual in person for him or her to become a recipient of the energies activated by the 'curative fantasy.'
As far as curative fantasy, that would mean I would believe
that BK can solve my emotional problems. I've never believed that. All I did was test The Work and, for me, it worked. There was no fantasy going on there. It was authentic realizations that the things I was stressing over I didn't need to stress over.
To quote Dr. Orstein: ''You see the same sort of fantasy in everyday life,'' Dr. Ornstein said. ''The idea that if I just get this job, or if only my wife would treat me in a certain way, or whatever, then my problems would be solved.'' http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DC1E38F932A35752C1A96E948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=3
I am completely opposite to that way of thinking... I don't think anything or anyone externally
can solve my internal
To give a vivid example, many Germans never met Hitler up close. But we have the newsreel footage of what happened and how the crowds went wild
during the Nuremberg rally. The curative fantasies of thousands, millions of people both present at that rally and throughout a nation listening on radios were projected upon one person, many of whom were never able to shake hands with the man. That kind of fusion between someone's public persona and a searching individual's curative fantasy can happen while one is sitting at a computer terminal, too. Just because that bonding doesnt happen in the middle of a mob of people doesnt mean it cant happen to us. The internet has opened a new avenue for entreprenuers to crawl into the deep structure of our minds and fuse their script with hopes and dreams we dont even know we have.
LOL And I probably would have been one of those Germans harboring Jews in my attic and denouncing Hitler's ridiculous notions...
I agree. No one can say for certain that they are absolutely immune to transference, curative fantasies, and crowd mentalities (not only is Hitler a good example, but so is the Salem Witch Trials...), but my tendency is to disassociate from the crowds and formulate my own opinions.
Now getting closer to home--its interesting that BK's husband Stephen Mitchell has written a rather famous translation of the Tao Te Ching...
Are you implying something here??
Anyway, IMO this whole post smacks of 'too much information.'
Are you sure you're not a BK facilitator....hoping to become one?
I know I'm verbose. I'd rather overexplain and drive home my points than underexplain and have people assume I'm conveying things I'm not. People have a nasty tendency to do that.
And, no, I'm not a BK facilitator and have no desire to be one.