Chapter 7 - The Chemistry of Feeling
Because ‘depression’ is fast becoming the scourge of modern society, in this chapter, we’ll look mainly at the issue of brain chemistry in relation to depression, bipolar disorder and their similar mood states. It is simply a useful example (depression) in showing up how modern medicine has skewed the reality in favour of chemical intervention.
As we work through this chapter, bear in mind that the information presented about depression can be applied to the full range of our feeling states – perhaps not in exactly the same way in chemical detail, but the experience of what we call depression provides us with the best example from which to draw our picture of ‘the chemistry of feeling’.
The information here is basic, but poignant enough to present the argument that the chemistry of the brain is not the precursor to all mood problems.
Chemical Imbalance?
Because ‘depression’ is fast becoming the scourge of modern society, in this chapter, we’ll look mainly at the issue of brain chemistry in relation to depression, bipolar disorder and their similar mood states. It is simply a useful example (depression) in showing up how modern medicine has skewed the reality in favour of chemical intervention.
As we work through this chapter, bear in mind that the information presented about depression can be applied to the full range of our feeling states – perhaps not in exactly the same way in chemical detail, but the experience of what we call depression provides us with the best example from which to draw our picture of ‘the chemistry of feeling’.
The information here is basic, but poignant enough to present the argument that the chemistry of the brain is not the precursor to all mood problems.
Chemical Imbalance?
Are feelings and emotions caused by our neurotransmitters and other body chemistry? Or is the production of our neurochemistry the result of the dynamics of our feeling states? We have seen in previous chapters (5 and 6) that it is the state of emotional balance of the whole person that has a huge influence on the production of all chemicals and hormones in the body.
This does not only apply to our biomechanical aspects, but also to our neuromechanical selves. Early pharmacological research found that laboratory specimens (rats, rabbits), when clinically encouraged to adopt a depressed mood state, showed a reduction in the levels of the neurotransmitter, serotonin (among others, such as dopamine) in the brain. This discovery led to a convenient but illogical proposal that this depression was caused by the low levels of serotonin. The debate still rages today, within learned circles, as to the ‘truth’ of that proposition, with affectologists holding to the logic that if we suffer a continuation of depressed feelings for any reason, then this in itself will bring about a reduction in the levels of serotonin in the brain, as the brain requires less serotonin in order to function at a lower synaptic rate. The opposite side of the debate is, of course, furiously supported by pharmaceutical conglomerates and those who seek the ‘easy path’ of relief from drugs.
So, our preverbally-learned sense of self ultimately influences the presence of attitudes such as negativism and pessimism, which have a tendency to create the sort of “stuckness” in depressed feelings and mood states that grow to become what the medical fraternity calls clinical depression. It’s the “stuckness” – the habituation and perseveration – that creates the reduction in serotonin, not the other way around.
This argument brings the occasional volcanic response from those who choose to justify their depression and “blame” low levels of serotonin, and that’s understood. There is much emotional investment in the proposition that this is the case. The big problem with that argument is that, if that is the belief, then it follows that a life must be led always managed through the intervention of mood elevating pharmaceuticals – the legal “uppers.” The compounded problem with that is that all vestiges of self-responsibility for our state of wellbeing are removed from us and we become powerless in the face of the myth that “I am depressed because my brain chemistry is out of balance.”
This does not detract, though, from the fact that cases do exist where the depressive state is the result of a genetic brain imbalance, an induced imbalance (from substance abuse) or, in rare cases, a chronic progression from unresolved early life abuse that has created a locked-in psychosomatic habituation toward constant depression. In these cases, we contend that the logical course may involve temporary and careful chemical intervention.
This does not only apply to our biomechanical aspects, but also to our neuromechanical selves. Early pharmacological research found that laboratory specimens (rats, rabbits), when clinically encouraged to adopt a depressed mood state, showed a reduction in the levels of the neurotransmitter, serotonin (among others, such as dopamine) in the brain. This discovery led to a convenient but illogical proposal that this depression was caused by the low levels of serotonin. The debate still rages today, within learned circles, as to the ‘truth’ of that proposition, with affectologists holding to the logic that if we suffer a continuation of depressed feelings for any reason, then this in itself will bring about a reduction in the levels of serotonin in the brain, as the brain requires less serotonin in order to function at a lower synaptic rate. The opposite side of the debate is, of course, furiously supported by pharmaceutical conglomerates and those who seek the ‘easy path’ of relief from drugs.
- “If YOU have a chemical imbalance then I have the expensive drugs here to fix it”, says the pharmaceutical company.
- “If I have a chemical imbalance, and I believe that, then the expensive drugs are the only way to stabilize my life”, says the sufferer.
So, our preverbally-learned sense of self ultimately influences the presence of attitudes such as negativism and pessimism, which have a tendency to create the sort of “stuckness” in depressed feelings and mood states that grow to become what the medical fraternity calls clinical depression. It’s the “stuckness” – the habituation and perseveration – that creates the reduction in serotonin, not the other way around.
This argument brings the occasional volcanic response from those who choose to justify their depression and “blame” low levels of serotonin, and that’s understood. There is much emotional investment in the proposition that this is the case. The big problem with that argument is that, if that is the belief, then it follows that a life must be led always managed through the intervention of mood elevating pharmaceuticals – the legal “uppers.” The compounded problem with that is that all vestiges of self-responsibility for our state of wellbeing are removed from us and we become powerless in the face of the myth that “I am depressed because my brain chemistry is out of balance.”
This does not detract, though, from the fact that cases do exist where the depressive state is the result of a genetic brain imbalance, an induced imbalance (from substance abuse) or, in rare cases, a chronic progression from unresolved early life abuse that has created a locked-in psychosomatic habituation toward constant depression. In these cases, we contend that the logical course may involve temporary and careful chemical intervention.
Mood Medicines
At this point in history, the use of antidepressants has become, sadly, a norm rather than an occasional exception reserved for exceptional cases. We’ll briefly look at the current group of antidepressants known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Zoloft, Prozac, Luvox and Effexor, to name just a few. In order to understand how these work, we need to have a brief look at how the neurotransmitters work.
Simply put, the neurotransmitter chemical serotonin (as well as dopamine, norepinephrine, and others) is required to transmit electrochemical signals from cell to cell in the brain. Each transmission is called a synapse. Synapses occur at the rate of billions a second. The rate of synapses determine the level of mental activity of the brain, and the rate of mental activity determines the rate of synaptic activity.
Chicken and egg. Serotonin is produced with each synapse and is absorbed by the receiving neuron when it’s done its transmission job. Pharmaceutical researchers have found that when chemicals containing certain mineral salts are introduced into the system, the receptors no longer absorb serotonin at the same rate as before. This creates an increase in the level of neurotransmitters, resulting in an increase in brain activity. The theory is that this in turn creates a heightened mood state and depression is relieved. This, then, is the function of SSRIs. It’s synthetic and dangerous.
Apart from going into the myriad possible side effects of this incursion (insult) into the body’s chemistry (not just the brain), it’s enough to point out two obvious results of ingestion of this type of antidepressant. Firstly, it constitutes mere clumsy management of the symptoms of depression, rather than a cure of any other cause than “chemical.” Secondly, the results of excess flooding of serotonin in the brain almost certainly create episodes of mania, and even violent tendencies, sometimes resulting in the sort of self-harm that they claim to relieve. At best, correct dosages can merely be guessed at, and all too often the trial and error approach creates more distress than the original depression. I’ll finish with a short story.
Paul came to see me a few months after he’d been diagnosed with clinical depression and prescribed Effexor. His experience of depression had been mild at most. After several weeks on this SSRI, he started to experience episodes of heightened mental activity, high anxiety and periods of what he described as mania. His doctor immediately diagnosed him as having bipolar disorder (nee manic depression) and prescribed medication to control that problem. He was distressed that he seemed to be sinking into pharmaceutical dependency, when he had merely started out with mild depression. When I asked him if he’d had any manic or high anxiety experiences prior to taking SSRIs, his response was “never.” Yet, it had not occurred to him or (seemingly) his doctor, that there was a distinct possibility that he was now bipolar as a result of the taking of the antidepressant meds in the first place.
We live in a dangerous age, where interference and impairment of our most cherished possession – our mind, our brain – is increasingly taken for granted.
Rebalancing
We accept that it would be irresponsible to argue the dangers of psychotropic medications without attesting to any alternatives. The study of affective neuroscience has led to the development of clinical affectology, where the primary aim is to help bring about a balancing of mood states through re-learning early preverbal affect responses. Aside from this ideal approach, many other methods of rebalancing mind, body and spirit can become part of your life after experiencing clinical affectology: that is, the ‘retuning’ and flipping of the switch on stuck preverbal scripts can in turn allow for a style of being where the following aids are easily incorporated into your life.
Meditation has been shown to bring about definite rebalancing of the activity of the ANS. The simple activity of physical work creates higher levels of serotonin in the brain, as does increased involvement in sports. The act of laughing more increases endorphin and serotonin levels (and I mean belly laughing not just mouth laughing!). Many alternatives to chemical intervention are available to us. We need not simply accept that the pill is the divine answer.
And after accepting a greater care about what you put into your system, then Clinical Affectology (or its variants) is the real answer to freeing up from stuck preverbal scripts.
Chapter Wrap-up:
__________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 8 - Descartes’ Error
Before we embark on any excoriation of poor old Renee Descartes, it’s appropriate to say that, like Freud (who also enjoys a measure of professional denigration today), his propositions were seemingly right for his time; and certainly, as any theological historian will tell us, religiously convenient. But, time passes, bringing further developments in logic and commonsense.
Descartes’ Error is the title of a fascinating book by neurology professor, Antonio Damasio, in which he writes that Descartes’ philosophical proposition “I think; therefore, I am” has led the way to many of the emotional ills of today.
Nobody can argue against the fact that mankind has enjoyed a certain amount of self-directed internal harmony for many millennia. Yes, we suffered the stresses and travails of the efforts to survive; the so-called instincts that we required to continue to live, develop and propagate, some of which were not comfortable; but it has been during the last VERY short time in developmental history that we have been cursed with the afflictions, dis-ease and emotional disharmony that we almost take for granted today.
Since emerging from the primordial swamp, we’ve survived without the mental, emotional, attitudinal, behavioral and psychosomatic problems that today characterize our species and require that therapists exist anyway. If this is the case, what has gone wrong? What is it about mankind that has made life today so fraught with the problems unknown to us a comparatively short time ago?
The serious student of anthropology, historical linguistics or species-developmental psychology may be thrilled at the details of the minutiae of what took us from the trees to the moon, but, for our purposes, we focus here on the development of human thought and its relationship to emotion, feeling and overall health; Man’s desire to compartmentalize and de-construct the already perfect bio-machine.
The history of ‘modern’ Western medicine, Western surgical techniques, and certainly bio-psychiatry and psychology is a very short one, particularly the latter two. Just a couple of centuries ago in the Western medical tradition, surgeons were considered to be little more than mechanics. Little was known of the workings of the body or its connection with mind and all the other systems contained within it.
During the development of Western medicine, European thought was inclined, as it has been for centuries, towards ‘scientific’ explanation, and requiring ‘scientific qualification’ in order for any hypothesis to be accepted. As we know, scientific requirements are such that we may accept only those facts that are observable and quantifiable. But ‘mind’ or emotions, are not quantifiable, only the symptomatic manifestations that they may have on the body (psychosomatics).
I Think therefore I Am?
At this point in history, the use of antidepressants has become, sadly, a norm rather than an occasional exception reserved for exceptional cases. We’ll briefly look at the current group of antidepressants known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Zoloft, Prozac, Luvox and Effexor, to name just a few. In order to understand how these work, we need to have a brief look at how the neurotransmitters work.
Simply put, the neurotransmitter chemical serotonin (as well as dopamine, norepinephrine, and others) is required to transmit electrochemical signals from cell to cell in the brain. Each transmission is called a synapse. Synapses occur at the rate of billions a second. The rate of synapses determine the level of mental activity of the brain, and the rate of mental activity determines the rate of synaptic activity.
Chicken and egg. Serotonin is produced with each synapse and is absorbed by the receiving neuron when it’s done its transmission job. Pharmaceutical researchers have found that when chemicals containing certain mineral salts are introduced into the system, the receptors no longer absorb serotonin at the same rate as before. This creates an increase in the level of neurotransmitters, resulting in an increase in brain activity. The theory is that this in turn creates a heightened mood state and depression is relieved. This, then, is the function of SSRIs. It’s synthetic and dangerous.
Apart from going into the myriad possible side effects of this incursion (insult) into the body’s chemistry (not just the brain), it’s enough to point out two obvious results of ingestion of this type of antidepressant. Firstly, it constitutes mere clumsy management of the symptoms of depression, rather than a cure of any other cause than “chemical.” Secondly, the results of excess flooding of serotonin in the brain almost certainly create episodes of mania, and even violent tendencies, sometimes resulting in the sort of self-harm that they claim to relieve. At best, correct dosages can merely be guessed at, and all too often the trial and error approach creates more distress than the original depression. I’ll finish with a short story.
Paul came to see me a few months after he’d been diagnosed with clinical depression and prescribed Effexor. His experience of depression had been mild at most. After several weeks on this SSRI, he started to experience episodes of heightened mental activity, high anxiety and periods of what he described as mania. His doctor immediately diagnosed him as having bipolar disorder (nee manic depression) and prescribed medication to control that problem. He was distressed that he seemed to be sinking into pharmaceutical dependency, when he had merely started out with mild depression. When I asked him if he’d had any manic or high anxiety experiences prior to taking SSRIs, his response was “never.” Yet, it had not occurred to him or (seemingly) his doctor, that there was a distinct possibility that he was now bipolar as a result of the taking of the antidepressant meds in the first place.
We live in a dangerous age, where interference and impairment of our most cherished possession – our mind, our brain – is increasingly taken for granted.
Rebalancing
We accept that it would be irresponsible to argue the dangers of psychotropic medications without attesting to any alternatives. The study of affective neuroscience has led to the development of clinical affectology, where the primary aim is to help bring about a balancing of mood states through re-learning early preverbal affect responses. Aside from this ideal approach, many other methods of rebalancing mind, body and spirit can become part of your life after experiencing clinical affectology: that is, the ‘retuning’ and flipping of the switch on stuck preverbal scripts can in turn allow for a style of being where the following aids are easily incorporated into your life.
Meditation has been shown to bring about definite rebalancing of the activity of the ANS. The simple activity of physical work creates higher levels of serotonin in the brain, as does increased involvement in sports. The act of laughing more increases endorphin and serotonin levels (and I mean belly laughing not just mouth laughing!). Many alternatives to chemical intervention are available to us. We need not simply accept that the pill is the divine answer.
And after accepting a greater care about what you put into your system, then Clinical Affectology (or its variants) is the real answer to freeing up from stuck preverbal scripts.
Chapter Wrap-up:
- This chapter has shown us that we can use the very common story of depression as an example of the mistake of thinking that mood states and other life attitudes are the result of ‘brain chemistry imbalances.’
- This is germane to this study simply because of the common attitude, “anything wrong with my emotions? That’s OK, I’ll take a pill.”
__________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 8 - Descartes’ Error
Before we embark on any excoriation of poor old Renee Descartes, it’s appropriate to say that, like Freud (who also enjoys a measure of professional denigration today), his propositions were seemingly right for his time; and certainly, as any theological historian will tell us, religiously convenient. But, time passes, bringing further developments in logic and commonsense.
Descartes’ Error is the title of a fascinating book by neurology professor, Antonio Damasio, in which he writes that Descartes’ philosophical proposition “I think; therefore, I am” has led the way to many of the emotional ills of today.
Nobody can argue against the fact that mankind has enjoyed a certain amount of self-directed internal harmony for many millennia. Yes, we suffered the stresses and travails of the efforts to survive; the so-called instincts that we required to continue to live, develop and propagate, some of which were not comfortable; but it has been during the last VERY short time in developmental history that we have been cursed with the afflictions, dis-ease and emotional disharmony that we almost take for granted today.
Since emerging from the primordial swamp, we’ve survived without the mental, emotional, attitudinal, behavioral and psychosomatic problems that today characterize our species and require that therapists exist anyway. If this is the case, what has gone wrong? What is it about mankind that has made life today so fraught with the problems unknown to us a comparatively short time ago?
The serious student of anthropology, historical linguistics or species-developmental psychology may be thrilled at the details of the minutiae of what took us from the trees to the moon, but, for our purposes, we focus here on the development of human thought and its relationship to emotion, feeling and overall health; Man’s desire to compartmentalize and de-construct the already perfect bio-machine.
The history of ‘modern’ Western medicine, Western surgical techniques, and certainly bio-psychiatry and psychology is a very short one, particularly the latter two. Just a couple of centuries ago in the Western medical tradition, surgeons were considered to be little more than mechanics. Little was known of the workings of the body or its connection with mind and all the other systems contained within it.
During the development of Western medicine, European thought was inclined, as it has been for centuries, towards ‘scientific’ explanation, and requiring ‘scientific qualification’ in order for any hypothesis to be accepted. As we know, scientific requirements are such that we may accept only those facts that are observable and quantifiable. But ‘mind’ or emotions, are not quantifiable, only the symptomatic manifestations that they may have on the body (psychosomatics).
I Think therefore I Am?
So Western medicine, in its mad downhill run of desire to specialize, readily accepted the philosophy of Rene Descartes, or at least accepted an aspect of his philosophy to suit its purpose.
No matter whether Descartes’ ideas were as concrete to him as most commentators claim, or not, the only thing that matters is that Western medicine has built its foundations on his dualistic theory of substance.
He stated:
“This ‘I’ – that is, the soul, by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body, and would not fail to be what it is even if the body did not exist”.
This, in modern terms has been conveniently condensed to the familiar saying; - “I think; therefore I am.” And it is still attributed to Descartes, even though he said nothing of the sort.
His theories were complex, and this famous (or infamous) statement did not mean, I suspect, what has been made of it, but what a boon for the scientifically-directed medicos of the 18th to 21st centuries!
Protestations and condemnations aside, the fact remains that, in our society, medicine has followed this dualistic view, and generally applies itself ONLY to the scientifically observable machinations of the corporeal body and its tangible systems.
Consequently, our medical paradigm offers little solace to those members of our society who wonder about, and seek help for, issues of existence that involve feelings, emotions, attitudes, behaviours and their physical effects (psychosomatics). In the main, it is claimed that they are “not observable, so cannot exist.”
At the very outside, we may be able to restore chemical balance by the ingestion of psychotropic substances (they claim).
No matter whether Descartes’ ideas were as concrete to him as most commentators claim, or not, the only thing that matters is that Western medicine has built its foundations on his dualistic theory of substance.
He stated:
“This ‘I’ – that is, the soul, by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body, and would not fail to be what it is even if the body did not exist”.
This, in modern terms has been conveniently condensed to the familiar saying; - “I think; therefore I am.” And it is still attributed to Descartes, even though he said nothing of the sort.
His theories were complex, and this famous (or infamous) statement did not mean, I suspect, what has been made of it, but what a boon for the scientifically-directed medicos of the 18th to 21st centuries!
Protestations and condemnations aside, the fact remains that, in our society, medicine has followed this dualistic view, and generally applies itself ONLY to the scientifically observable machinations of the corporeal body and its tangible systems.
Consequently, our medical paradigm offers little solace to those members of our society who wonder about, and seek help for, issues of existence that involve feelings, emotions, attitudes, behaviours and their physical effects (psychosomatics). In the main, it is claimed that they are “not observable, so cannot exist.”
At the very outside, we may be able to restore chemical balance by the ingestion of psychotropic substances (they claim).
|
“This is Descartes’ error: the abysmal separation between body and mind, between sizable, dimensioned, mechanically-operated, infinitely divisible body stuff on the one hand, and the unsizable, undimensioned, un-pushpullable, nondivisible, mind stuff; the suggestion that reasoning, and moral judgement, and the suffering that comes from physical pain or emotional upheaval might exist separately from the body. Specifically: the separation of the most refined operations of the mind from the structure and operation of a biological organism."
----- Antonio R. Damasio. |
Whether he intended it or not, Descartes’ short theoretical statement has established itself as the unwritten ‘banner’ of the Western medical paradigm where, in general terms, a patient is no more or less than the sum total of all physical parts and systems, and a chemical/mechanical cause must be sought to explain our mood states.
What Really Drives the Bus?
Affectologists propose that the axiom, I think, therefore I am, drives psychotherapists and counselors – and by extension, all of us – to believe that if we cannot observe an aspect of self from a quantifiable and explanatory perspective, then it doesn’t exist. Or, if it does exist, we can’t put it into words. And if we can’t put it into words, then it can’t be analyzed and understood.
An unfortunate reverse corollary of the adage would go something like, “because the content of affect establishment is not something I can analyze with the thinking mind, and I cannot think it, therefore it doesn’t exist.”
For affectologists, “I FEEL, therefore I am” is a much more fitting axiom when we understand the dynamics of the affect self, how we structure our emotional lives, and the invisible everyday hijacking by our feelings that have been studied in all the previous chapters of this course. FEELINGS drive the bus, not thoughts and verbalization.
Symptoms Vs Cause
Many therapies subscribe to the idea that ‘cause’ must be dealt with. I hope that we have shown that all too often, the cause is inaccessible to ‘thought’ or the spoken word. Clinical Affectologists work on the basis that authentic feeling cause is not inaccessible; it’s just not accessible through the use of narrative description.
It’s often the simplest of metaphors that work the best, and the ‘symptom tree’ metaphor is one that affectologists hold dearly to. If we can imagine the human being, in all its complexities, as being a tree, then we can see that the readily visible aspects of that tree consist mainly of its leaves (provided it’s an evergreen). We can conceptualize that the leaves, being the most visible and recognizable equate with our ‘known’ aspects of self – what we can describe in respect of our problems, symptoms and illnesses, The conglomeration of leaves is our narrative self.
If we correct or pick off unhealthy leaves, it makes no difference to the tree’s root system. And it’s the root system that forms the foundation of that tree – the ‘cause’ structure from which it has grown and on which it depends for its health. To heal the tree in its entirety, we must heal the root system first in order for the rest to flourish and naturally heal itself. To address only our ‘known’ and knowable symptoms is like merely picking leaves from the tree.
To truly bring the metaphoric tree to wellness, we must embark on healing the feeling.
The Implications
The traditional Eastern medical paradigm is one that has adhered, for four thousand years or so, to the notions that the physical aspects of the body, its systems, the brain, the mind (and all its conceptual convolutions), the emotions and the spirit, are all interconnected, each depending on the other for sustenance, support, homeostasis and psychosomatic balance.
We have seen that our earliest affect learnings influenced, through perseveration, all that was subsequently learned; that all of who we are today, through our conditioning and education, bears traces of the nonverbal affect self. If this is so, we have no option but to throw some doubt on the verity and authenticity of memory and self-perception, or any therapy that relies on the client’s self-assessorial statements to form diagnoses about past events, or even current experiences that are influenced by subconscious processes.
But, “doubt” is the word, rather than denigration. Even though our propositions appear to negate the value of any verbalization at all, we do not claim sole ownership of effective therapy. Psychotherapy and counseling – the narrative (talking) therapies – are very often effective, bringing relief through the cognitive processes of working through the intricacies of a client’s emotional and mental life. But affectologists are concerned that when they fail, it is because of the lack of recognition of the preverbal affect self and its influence on all that we are.
Therapists and ‘change agents’ of all persuasions could well be persuaded to acknowledge and understand the implications of what has been, and still is, a significant blind spot in the professions:- the existence of the non-verbal affect matrix.
In the final analysis, affectology does not attack other effective therapeutic approaches, but proposes that there exists a component, a missing link, that requires contemporary acknowledgement and a greater place in the study of understanding the complexity of the human condition.
Affective neuroscientists such as LeDoux, Damasio and Goleman have led the way; it now remains for all psychotherapeutic approaches to insert this important piece into the jigsaw puzzle.
Chapter Wrap-up:
To Continue to be transfixed, go now to PART FIVE
What Really Drives the Bus?
Affectologists propose that the axiom, I think, therefore I am, drives psychotherapists and counselors – and by extension, all of us – to believe that if we cannot observe an aspect of self from a quantifiable and explanatory perspective, then it doesn’t exist. Or, if it does exist, we can’t put it into words. And if we can’t put it into words, then it can’t be analyzed and understood.
An unfortunate reverse corollary of the adage would go something like, “because the content of affect establishment is not something I can analyze with the thinking mind, and I cannot think it, therefore it doesn’t exist.”
For affectologists, “I FEEL, therefore I am” is a much more fitting axiom when we understand the dynamics of the affect self, how we structure our emotional lives, and the invisible everyday hijacking by our feelings that have been studied in all the previous chapters of this course. FEELINGS drive the bus, not thoughts and verbalization.
Symptoms Vs Cause
Many therapies subscribe to the idea that ‘cause’ must be dealt with. I hope that we have shown that all too often, the cause is inaccessible to ‘thought’ or the spoken word. Clinical Affectologists work on the basis that authentic feeling cause is not inaccessible; it’s just not accessible through the use of narrative description.
It’s often the simplest of metaphors that work the best, and the ‘symptom tree’ metaphor is one that affectologists hold dearly to. If we can imagine the human being, in all its complexities, as being a tree, then we can see that the readily visible aspects of that tree consist mainly of its leaves (provided it’s an evergreen). We can conceptualize that the leaves, being the most visible and recognizable equate with our ‘known’ aspects of self – what we can describe in respect of our problems, symptoms and illnesses, The conglomeration of leaves is our narrative self.
If we correct or pick off unhealthy leaves, it makes no difference to the tree’s root system. And it’s the root system that forms the foundation of that tree – the ‘cause’ structure from which it has grown and on which it depends for its health. To heal the tree in its entirety, we must heal the root system first in order for the rest to flourish and naturally heal itself. To address only our ‘known’ and knowable symptoms is like merely picking leaves from the tree.
To truly bring the metaphoric tree to wellness, we must embark on healing the feeling.
The Implications
The traditional Eastern medical paradigm is one that has adhered, for four thousand years or so, to the notions that the physical aspects of the body, its systems, the brain, the mind (and all its conceptual convolutions), the emotions and the spirit, are all interconnected, each depending on the other for sustenance, support, homeostasis and psychosomatic balance.
We have seen that our earliest affect learnings influenced, through perseveration, all that was subsequently learned; that all of who we are today, through our conditioning and education, bears traces of the nonverbal affect self. If this is so, we have no option but to throw some doubt on the verity and authenticity of memory and self-perception, or any therapy that relies on the client’s self-assessorial statements to form diagnoses about past events, or even current experiences that are influenced by subconscious processes.
But, “doubt” is the word, rather than denigration. Even though our propositions appear to negate the value of any verbalization at all, we do not claim sole ownership of effective therapy. Psychotherapy and counseling – the narrative (talking) therapies – are very often effective, bringing relief through the cognitive processes of working through the intricacies of a client’s emotional and mental life. But affectologists are concerned that when they fail, it is because of the lack of recognition of the preverbal affect self and its influence on all that we are.
Therapists and ‘change agents’ of all persuasions could well be persuaded to acknowledge and understand the implications of what has been, and still is, a significant blind spot in the professions:- the existence of the non-verbal affect matrix.
In the final analysis, affectology does not attack other effective therapeutic approaches, but proposes that there exists a component, a missing link, that requires contemporary acknowledgement and a greater place in the study of understanding the complexity of the human condition.
Affective neuroscientists such as LeDoux, Damasio and Goleman have led the way; it now remains for all psychotherapeutic approaches to insert this important piece into the jigsaw puzzle.
Chapter Wrap-up:
- In this chapter, we have touched on the unfortunate idea that has pervaded modern society – that the ‘thinking mind’ is the governing mind. This is largely the result of Descartes’ “I think; therefore I am” adage that has been adopted by psychology and post-Freudian approaches to determining human states.
- The truth in all aspects is that “I FEEL, THEREFORE I AM.”
- “Thinking,” because it is dissociated from preverbal affect, can never make a change to deep emotional states of being.
To Continue to be transfixed, go now to PART FIVE