to join the new trauma recovery list click here My hypothesis is that if we deliberately put humility back into the system, we do two things. One, we take away the natural conflicting element of the therapeutic process, the natural elements of conflict. There are two humans. There are two egos. They're in a room, and because of the context, it becomes like tennis. It becomes like boxing. It becomes like some competitive sport.
Nobody means for it to be that way. It's just that, whether you're the coach or the therapist or the client in this scenario, the dumb shaved monkeys that we are, we kind of lean towards playing dominance games, whether we want to or not. That's just the way it goes.
So before you know it, you're playing ping pong over your depression, you're playing tennis over your anxiety. You're in a boxing match with your coach, with your therapist, over the dynamics of the grieving process, or whether you're doing the right kind of work to help you to grieve for the death and the loss of your last relationship, as an example of a common thing that people would see a coach or counselor for.
So number one, the humility takes away from that dynamic. It reminds us consciously and with intent, "Look, this is just a conversation between two adults. It's not surgery. I'm not under general anesthetic. Nobody can cut the anxiety out of me." So it kind of reminds us that it's like a Socratic process. It's like philosophy. In fact, we already know it's known that you can trace the roots of psychology back to philosophy.
But this dynamic of two people talking, I mean is that not the essence of a philosophical method? Is that not like the Socratic method? You're basically debating with the hope that you're going to have a positive outcome. So as well as taking away from this ego versus ego fight, it also reminds us that this is not magic and this is just a conversation between two consenting adults, where it is presumed that we have the same goal in mind, which is to feel better at the end of it. Right?
The second thing that I think bringing this level of humility in is, it kind of moves the ego out of the way, and when I say ego in this context, obviously it is implicit. I'm not talking about the healthy ego. I'm talking about that side of the self that clings to dominance, that wants to be right, that wants to be in charge, that wants to be in control, that secretly loathes the therapeutic process, secretly loathes the humbling of having to come and ask another adult for help, where the part of life that the ego, one part of the ego is going to be going, "You should be able to do that."
And if we remind ourselves of our Sanskrit, that side of the ego is the ah Hum kaya. In Sanskrit, it was the ahamkara It is the ahamkara spoken of in Hinduism and Buddhism. That's the ego that we don't want.
The good ego that is vibrant and thriving and provides us healthy boundaries with people, that's like the Freudian healthy ego. The ego that we're talking about here is more of a Vedic Eastern concept of ego that, we should really use another word, which is the ah Hum kaya, which means the, "I am maker," and it is implicit in that Sanskrit word that was brought with it, is dominance and illusion and delusion, basically delusions of grandeur, basically some of the essential elements of narcissism.
#HUMILITY
#RICHARDGRANNOn
#PSYCHOTHERAPY
0 Comments