94stranger
PART 3
Individual or one to one psychotherapy (as against the other big category, group work) comes in many guises – at one extreme, it may amount to two people sitting and talking; at the other, it could involve the client screaming in rage or terror, hitting out in a padded space with fists or feet, while the therapist observes. Someone may re-create a painful scene from childhood, playing the roles of themselves as a small child, of another family member… It may involve a person being silently held while they sob their heart out… it may include discussions on the nature and role of dreams…it may involve the therapist applying pressure at critical points in the body; a little child playing with toys, or a grown-up talking to a teddy bear. It will not be easy for us to compare a Rainring session with a psychotherapy one, given the enormous range of psychotherapy practice. We shall have to talk about psychotherapy in a very general way, trying to get a sense of what the many schools and methods have in common, emphasising the general rather than the particular.
The standard set-up revolves around one person paying another for help with their problems.[1] We can therefore ask the question: what qualifies you, the therapist, to help me, the client, with my problems? Presumably the general answer is that I have been trained to do this, and that I have also myself been in the position of client, as you now are, so that I can empathise with you. In other words, it seems as if we are bound to conclude that the basic set-up requires this belief on the part of the client: ‘you can help me, because you are on the same road as me, but you are further down that road.’ After all, if I am both trusting my psychic health to you, and paying you hard-earned money, I presumably will do so only if I have a degree of confidence in you. It may well be that I go to see you because you helped my friend, though it could also be because I have read your book or mission statement and it resonates with me.
All this sounds fine, but in the world of the psyche, things are seldom if ever straightforward. For example, it has been suggested first, that people never change unless they absolutely have to and second, that they unconsciously choose the therapist with whom they will NOT have to change – who will not threaten where they are at. These sound like outrageous statements. Unfortunately, it may well be true that as many people pay a therapist in order not to change, as pay one because they ARE ready to change. And if someone is ready, the therapist still needs the requisite skill. In reality, no-one goes from being 100% unreal to being 100% real, just because they come to a point where they know they can’t go on as they are. Old habits die hard. After half a lifetime of running away from myself, I am not suddenly, from one day to the next, ready to face everything. And thank goodness – it would be impossible to handle that, like those cases where someone’s defences are blown away suddenly by drugs, they are overwhelmed by the consequences, and end up having to be hospitalised. Healing is like a labyrinth, and the therapist has to provide the ball of string.
While writing this piece, I went to have a look at the Wikipedia article on re-evaluation counselling. I found, amongst other things, this all-to-familiar passage:
‘Re-evaluation Counseling places a high importance on the need to understand and adhere to a comprehensive theory about the nature of the universe and of human beings … People disagreeing with the theoretical perspective are asked to think and discharge on the points at issue before actively challenging such perspectives.’ Although put in mild middle-class language, what this means is: ‘We know what’s right. If you you’re not able to conform to our way, go and find out what your problem is.’ I’ve included this because it is, sadly, absolutely typical of those organisations – whether the orientation is psychotherapeutic or philosophical / religious – where the bottom line message is: ‘agree or leave’.
This may sound reasonable on one level. The problem really lies in what is missing. The founder (almost invariably a man) is defined as being right, and the truth of his views is considered to be axiomatic. Nor do such people EVER get together with other founders of other schools in order to try and thrash out where, in all their different interpretations, a wider truth might lie. It is the potential for such defensive attitudes which hangs over the therapy session, and constitutes a major hazard for the client.
In effect, the therapist has limits. These may include both the inability to recognise that they cannot help a particular person, and the inability to admit it. They may also include the inability to recognise that they are wrong. One crucial point in a course of psychotherapy will come at the first confrontation between therapist and client. Will the client have room to challenge, and see the therapist able to call their own behaviour and attitudes into question? Or will the client be obliged either to leave or else to back off and make sure not to go near that place again? On the other hand, what if the therapist takes the initiative and challenges the client? Then a whole new dynamic, with a series of other potential pitfalls and abuses, comes into operation.
This one-to-one set-up is a fragile and delicate thing. Rainring is relevant not just to those who might need psychotherapeutic support – the possible clients – but to those who give it – the therapists. In fact, there is no reason why the cards could not be used as an adjunct to therapy. Of course, in the wrong hands, they can provide yet another tool with which the therapist on a power trip can subjugate the client – but few things cannot be abused. What Rainring does, as we have already mentioned, is to provide a third presence, and one which cannot – if appropriate safeguards are taken – be swayed by the desires and motivations (conscious or unconscious) of either the client or, just as critically, of the therapist.
It seems to me that a Rainring session provides the client with an option which does not exist in psychotherapy. What the Rainring reader has to say must always derive from the cards. It is open to the querant / client to familiarise themselves with the cards. The more they acquire such familiarity, the more they will be in a position to query any particular interpretation. Of course, this will not affect the classic stereotypes – the reader who tries to impose themselves no matter what; the querant who has a compulsive need to resist everything which is said to them. Nevertheless, in the hands of a skilful practitioner, the third party present in the session – the cards – widens the range of possible options. There is nothing to stop the querant requesting one or more cards to characterise the reader’s attitude or performance. In fact, it might be worth considering making feedback from the cards standard practice at the end of a session – ‘How did we do?’ (4-card centred triangle, with the querant and reader at bottom left and right respectively; their balance point at apex; the result – vibe of the session – at centre.)
Let’s try and sum up the ground we have covered. First, a bad Rainring reading will never ever be of greater therapeutic help than a good psychotherapy session. We can under no circumstances claim that the existence of Rainring cards on the table, whether used by a trained card reader, a psychotherapist, or even someone who is both, is a guarantee of anything at all. We must prefix every sentence with: ‘other things being equal…’ So, other things being equal, the presence of the Rainring cards in a one-on-one situation where psychological help is being sought should be able to bring another dimension of understanding and insight, and also help to avoid some of the worst pitfalls of the therapist-client relationship. We claimed that Rainring is drawn from a wide variety of sources, only some of them directly characterisable as psycho-therapeutic. We said that it is first and foremost a cosmology, having a definite structure[2] which dictates the nature of the psychological content. We further stated that Rainring must itself contain viewpoints and attitudes; that it could not possibly be the100% objective truth about the psyche. The existence of the unicorn carthorse, for example, is our way of holding up our hands and saying: ‘look, Rainring is not a new holy book – if we can take the piss at our own expense, then surely you too can feel free to do so.
Finally, we suggested that Rainring is, ultimately, something to experience. Any verdict on it needs to come from using and exploring it, not from some kind of Olympian distance. When people have comments to make about the Rainring cards, it is always significant to check on who is actually using them, and who is merely in the role of spectator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This is not, however, true of re-evaluation- / co-counselling (and there may well be others).
[2] I must warn readers not in possession of the 4-mention (hard copy) cards that the most important structural element – the keystone of the arch, as it were - is not on the web at all, but resides in the four pack cards not available online, one of which is shown in full on the 'using Rainring' page at this link: http://94stranger.wordpress.com/rainring-masterclass/rainring-post-tarot-psychological-cards/
Individual or one to one psychotherapy (as against the other big category, group work) comes in many guises – at one extreme, it may amount to two people sitting and talking; at the other, it could involve the client screaming in rage or terror, hitting out in a padded space with fists or feet, while the therapist observes. Someone may re-create a painful scene from childhood, playing the roles of themselves as a small child, of another family member… It may involve a person being silently held while they sob their heart out… it may include discussions on the nature and role of dreams…it may involve the therapist applying pressure at critical points in the body; a little child playing with toys, or a grown-up talking to a teddy bear. It will not be easy for us to compare a Rainring session with a psychotherapy one, given the enormous range of psychotherapy practice. We shall have to talk about psychotherapy in a very general way, trying to get a sense of what the many schools and methods have in common, emphasising the general rather than the particular.
The standard set-up revolves around one person paying another for help with their problems.[1] We can therefore ask the question: what qualifies you, the therapist, to help me, the client, with my problems? Presumably the general answer is that I have been trained to do this, and that I have also myself been in the position of client, as you now are, so that I can empathise with you. In other words, it seems as if we are bound to conclude that the basic set-up requires this belief on the part of the client: ‘you can help me, because you are on the same road as me, but you are further down that road.’ After all, if I am both trusting my psychic health to you, and paying you hard-earned money, I presumably will do so only if I have a degree of confidence in you. It may well be that I go to see you because you helped my friend, though it could also be because I have read your book or mission statement and it resonates with me.
All this sounds fine, but in the world of the psyche, things are seldom if ever straightforward. For example, it has been suggested first, that people never change unless they absolutely have to and second, that they unconsciously choose the therapist with whom they will NOT have to change – who will not threaten where they are at. These sound like outrageous statements. Unfortunately, it may well be true that as many people pay a therapist in order not to change, as pay one because they ARE ready to change. And if someone is ready, the therapist still needs the requisite skill. In reality, no-one goes from being 100% unreal to being 100% real, just because they come to a point where they know they can’t go on as they are. Old habits die hard. After half a lifetime of running away from myself, I am not suddenly, from one day to the next, ready to face everything. And thank goodness – it would be impossible to handle that, like those cases where someone’s defences are blown away suddenly by drugs, they are overwhelmed by the consequences, and end up having to be hospitalised. Healing is like a labyrinth, and the therapist has to provide the ball of string.
While writing this piece, I went to have a look at the Wikipedia article on re-evaluation counselling. I found, amongst other things, this all-to-familiar passage:
‘Re-evaluation Counseling places a high importance on the need to understand and adhere to a comprehensive theory about the nature of the universe and of human beings … People disagreeing with the theoretical perspective are asked to think and discharge on the points at issue before actively challenging such perspectives.’ Although put in mild middle-class language, what this means is: ‘We know what’s right. If you you’re not able to conform to our way, go and find out what your problem is.’ I’ve included this because it is, sadly, absolutely typical of those organisations – whether the orientation is psychotherapeutic or philosophical / religious – where the bottom line message is: ‘agree or leave’.
This may sound reasonable on one level. The problem really lies in what is missing. The founder (almost invariably a man) is defined as being right, and the truth of his views is considered to be axiomatic. Nor do such people EVER get together with other founders of other schools in order to try and thrash out where, in all their different interpretations, a wider truth might lie. It is the potential for such defensive attitudes which hangs over the therapy session, and constitutes a major hazard for the client.
In effect, the therapist has limits. These may include both the inability to recognise that they cannot help a particular person, and the inability to admit it. They may also include the inability to recognise that they are wrong. One crucial point in a course of psychotherapy will come at the first confrontation between therapist and client. Will the client have room to challenge, and see the therapist able to call their own behaviour and attitudes into question? Or will the client be obliged either to leave or else to back off and make sure not to go near that place again? On the other hand, what if the therapist takes the initiative and challenges the client? Then a whole new dynamic, with a series of other potential pitfalls and abuses, comes into operation.
This one-to-one set-up is a fragile and delicate thing. Rainring is relevant not just to those who might need psychotherapeutic support – the possible clients – but to those who give it – the therapists. In fact, there is no reason why the cards could not be used as an adjunct to therapy. Of course, in the wrong hands, they can provide yet another tool with which the therapist on a power trip can subjugate the client – but few things cannot be abused. What Rainring does, as we have already mentioned, is to provide a third presence, and one which cannot – if appropriate safeguards are taken – be swayed by the desires and motivations (conscious or unconscious) of either the client or, just as critically, of the therapist.
It seems to me that a Rainring session provides the client with an option which does not exist in psychotherapy. What the Rainring reader has to say must always derive from the cards. It is open to the querant / client to familiarise themselves with the cards. The more they acquire such familiarity, the more they will be in a position to query any particular interpretation. Of course, this will not affect the classic stereotypes – the reader who tries to impose themselves no matter what; the querant who has a compulsive need to resist everything which is said to them. Nevertheless, in the hands of a skilful practitioner, the third party present in the session – the cards – widens the range of possible options. There is nothing to stop the querant requesting one or more cards to characterise the reader’s attitude or performance. In fact, it might be worth considering making feedback from the cards standard practice at the end of a session – ‘How did we do?’ (4-card centred triangle, with the querant and reader at bottom left and right respectively; their balance point at apex; the result – vibe of the session – at centre.)
Let’s try and sum up the ground we have covered. First, a bad Rainring reading will never ever be of greater therapeutic help than a good psychotherapy session. We can under no circumstances claim that the existence of Rainring cards on the table, whether used by a trained card reader, a psychotherapist, or even someone who is both, is a guarantee of anything at all. We must prefix every sentence with: ‘other things being equal…’ So, other things being equal, the presence of the Rainring cards in a one-on-one situation where psychological help is being sought should be able to bring another dimension of understanding and insight, and also help to avoid some of the worst pitfalls of the therapist-client relationship. We claimed that Rainring is drawn from a wide variety of sources, only some of them directly characterisable as psycho-therapeutic. We said that it is first and foremost a cosmology, having a definite structure[2] which dictates the nature of the psychological content. We further stated that Rainring must itself contain viewpoints and attitudes; that it could not possibly be the100% objective truth about the psyche. The existence of the unicorn carthorse, for example, is our way of holding up our hands and saying: ‘look, Rainring is not a new holy book – if we can take the piss at our own expense, then surely you too can feel free to do so.
Finally, we suggested that Rainring is, ultimately, something to experience. Any verdict on it needs to come from using and exploring it, not from some kind of Olympian distance. When people have comments to make about the Rainring cards, it is always significant to check on who is actually using them, and who is merely in the role of spectator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This is not, however, true of re-evaluation- / co-counselling (and there may well be others).
[2] I must warn readers not in possession of the 4-mention (hard copy) cards that the most important structural element – the keystone of the arch, as it were - is not on the web at all, but resides in the four pack cards not available online, one of which is shown in full on the 'using Rainring' page at this link: http://94stranger.wordpress.com/rainring-masterclass/rainring-post-tarot-psychological-cards/
