Cogito ergo Cogito

I think therefore I think

Chapter 11

Part 3

(Revised 11/9/08)

I am very unsure of the psycho-analytic ‘positive’ value of writing this brief history of Betty or any other adolescent, or, for that matter, of anyone.  I say that because such a ‘history’ is by definition ‘wrong’ and ‘misleading’. It is ‘wrong’ in the sense that it is based on heresay-heresay-heresay, interpretations of these events by a variety of people, the patient, other communicators, medical records, verbal communications, written communications, sensual communications, all of which are subject to infinite variations of humans and their understandings of most anything, etc.. Furthermore, and most importantly, we are psycho-analysts who realize that the meaning of virtually anything can only be determined by the essence of our work.  Were we mathematicians, we could add numbers and get the answer in the form of a sum, which we likely could agree upon.  An essential thesis of this book is that anything that is done to lead the analyst to stray from their duties as a psycho-analyst should be avoided as much as is possible, particularly with adolescents.  ‘History’ is an excellent example. I have quoted the following passage from Freud in a number of places, and it is particularly relevant yet again:
“It will been seen that the rule of giving equal notice to everything is the necessary counterpart to the demand made on the patient that he should communicate every-thing that occurs to him without criticism or selection.  If the doctor behaves other wise, he is throwing away most of the advantage which results from the patient’s obeying the ‘fundamental rule of psychoanalysis”.  The rule of the doctor may be expressed;’ he should withhold all conscious influences from his capacity to attend and give himself over completely to his “unconscious memory., or, to put it purely in terms of technique:, he should simply listen, and not bother about whether he is keeping any thing in his mind., (what is achieved in this manner will be sufficient for all requirements during the treatment….” (Freud, Standard Edition, Volume 12, pgs 111-112 Papers on Technique, Recommendations to Physicians Practising Psy-cho-Analysis).
As a reminder, put as an equation, the result is
S1→ S2→S3 →S4  and so forth
Each S represents statements, ‘truths,’ made by the adolescent. Each “→” is very complicated and important.  Although these arrows may denote a connection, such as a computer to the internet, it is important to note that these arrows do not necessarily denote a connection to anything including the next S and so forth. These ‘connections’ may say nothing about the quality or specificity of a ‘connection’.  That is to say, except temporally, statements may connect, may not, or may not be known to connect or not to connect.
 At each S or →, questioning, clarifying, gestures, commenting, remembering, connecting, listening quietly, laughter, etc. may be found to attempt to define, at least somewhat, the meaning of or the truth of the statement or connection.
It must be born in mind that none of these statements or connections or investigations are based on any ‘theory or predisposition’. This topic is also written about extensively in the ‘Commentary’ section of Bion’s book “Second Thoughts” which furnishes extensive material illuminating this topic.
Nevertheless, in spite of my reservations, below is a brief ‘history’ of Betty. One last reservation is that the ‘history’ itself is of no use, except to provide confusion and non-analytic thinking in the analytic consulting room. (Sources used to write this ‘history’ include verbal and written records of previous psychiatrists, treatment centers, hospitals, family members, especially her adoptive mother, Departments of Mental Health Reports, and the patient)
Betty is a 16 year old girl.  Her history is very complicated.  Allegedly, she is the off-spring of a drug addicted mother, an adoptive mother, who was allegedly a drug user herself, an alcoholic father and stepfather, and a family whose determination that on a ‘good’ day Betty was and is only intolerable and indescribably bad on ‘bad’ days.  The definition of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ remains very unclear both to me and to Betty, although Betty’s attempts at making these distinctions are few and far between.  Betty’s denial of the impact of these various relationships, circumstances, and events ranges from some to virtually complete.
One of the issues that apparently happens frequently, which may give a flavor of how things appear to go in her family, is that her family’s assessment of her behavior on a ‘home’ pass may be both to Betty and the staff, ‘good’, and yet in a latter report to the staff/Betty about the same pass, ‘bad’.  During the first two sessions with her, contrary to many, many later sessions, Betty reported with considerable animation her anger at her mother, and that she, Betty, was ‘perfect’ and that how her treatment by her mother made no sense, except to demonstrate how ‘crazy’ she (mother) was.
This theme of ‘perfect’ arose then and consistently appeared as her analysis proceeded. I jokingly recommended during a ‘perfect episode’, that she get a T-shirt that said “Perfect Girl”, lest there be any doubt by an observer that she was indeed perfect.  This idea entranced her and she had an actual “Perfect Girl” T-Shirt made for her. As her analysis proceeded, the T-Shirt creations expanded considerably, much to her delight.  Some ‘shirt’ themes based on their magnitude grew into statues. Most of the later versions of these shirts were imaginary.
Many fairy tale characters attracted/attract her.  “Tinker Bell” is a favorite of hers, which emerged as a favorite only after months of analysis.  In fact, according to her, she apparently owns virtually all of the Tinker Bell paraphernalia, including lunch boxes, clothes, shoes, etc., etc.. Her omnipotent creation of this ‘fairyland world’ may amount to her only solution to the apparently ‘terror land’ in which she apparently does live. The names and concepts of these T-Shirt names have varied widely and have gone from little girl fantasies to a much broader and more ‘mature’ and seemingly less fantasy based.  Recent names have included “Miss Unreliable”, “Miss Smart”, “Miss Room Restriction”, “Miss Obnoxious”, etc..  At present there are 21 active descriptions.
Although 18, Betty usually looks 13-14, but often acts older, sometimes younger, and is particularly ‘cute’.  She is commonly regarded, so I am told, as the ‘cutest’ girl in her high school.  ‘Cuteness’, according to her, makes her very sought after by the boys.  In the meantime, she talks with me about her ‘relationships’ which she conducts according to her ‘relationship’ principles.  For example, she likes to tell her next prospect ‘everything’ about her and expects them to do the same.  Absent this, she wants to be rid of them.  I don’t know as yet what her definition of ‘everything’ is, although this topic has emerged many times in sessions with Betty.  Lest I give a misleading impression, Betty is very bright, does well in school, and will graduate next June.
Further complicating matters and seemingly contradictory, as will be seen in the session below.  There is a clear-cut vicious, sadistic anger harbored in Betty, of which she is apparently primarily unconscious, sometimes consciously, which expresses itself partially towards her mother’s cat.  There is a long history of problems between Betty and the family cat. Her mother is a veterinarian’s assistant. As such, she is apparently especially close to animals, and especially the family cat.  Allegedly, on one occasion that is mentioned by Betty in the session material below, Betty threw the cat into a cardboard box.  This incident created an immense amount of anger and distrust by mother of Betty, and revealed Betty’s hatred of the cat.
My reason for the exercise below, annotation, one which I repeat frequently, is to review what I supposedly ‘did do’ at least as it is represented by my written recollections of the content of the session.  Mistakes I make are my main target. Of course, realistically, my notes are incomplete and inaccurate. First of a long chain of inaccuracies is that the notes rely on my memory, which is at best suspect. That my writing of notes can in any way reflect numerous variables such as tone, movement, looks, interruptions, etc., etc.  This exercise seems to be quite useful, often educational and fun, although sometimes revealing just how wrong I am able to go.
I will annotate this session using the principles expressed above of S1→ S2→S3 →S4  and so forth.
1  “By the way what’s the deal with the cat?” I asked.
As always, I try to be as non-specific and non-narrowing in interpretations I make.  With adolescents, this is particularly important.  The ‘S’, (truth) of ‘cat’ to Betty, is not known by me.  Her mention of the ‘cat’ just prior to my question, lead to that question about ‘cat’.
2  “Um, she took it away from me and I got mad. Now the cat doesn’t like me any more, but yet it’ll come up to me and want me to pet it every once and a while and then when I go up to it, it doesn’t want me to.  It’s bipolar.” She said, laughing.
3  “So you have a cat that needs some lithium or something like that?” I said laughing.
At that point in time, as often, to cast what she says, her ‘truth’ at that moment, in a way not ‘matching’ the apparent emotional ‘valence’ or thrust of an interchange, usually badly damages the session.  Here, she is laughing about the cat.  Laughing along seems to be the appropriate matching and is natural, not forced.
4   “And the only reason I try and pet it; is because it is the only cat in the house,” She said.
5  “So what, your mother tells you not to, but you go ahead and do it?” I asked.
6  “Sort of; like I’ll pet it and then she’ll tell me not to any more after I have already pissed it off.” She said.
I missed the point somewhat, but as so often happens, a correction in an appropriate environment, usually follows with the ‘correct’ material.  I think she’s talking about what her mother tells her to do about many things; she’s still talking ‘cat’.
7   “if the cat gets pissed off with you, what happens?” I asked.
She has gotten me back on track.
8  “I mean sometimes it’s fine; I’ll sit there and pet it and it will be fine and then it will snap.” She said.
So now, the ‘definition’ of the ‘cat’ is expanding. It is now the pissed off, snapping, bi-polar thing called  ‘cat’.
9  “Snaps—(shrug)?” I asked.

10  “Start’s hissing.” She said.

The meaning of the concept ‘cat’ continues to expand:  snapping, pissed off, hissing, and bipolar thing called a ‘cat’.
11  “Does it ever bite you?” I asked.

12   “No, if it did I’d frick’in throw it like a football.” She said.

The ‘cat’ is now a snapping, pissed off, hissing, bipolar, football suited to be thrown thing, called a ‘cat’.
13   “That’s kind of what happened before?” I said.
14   “And I like animals too. Well, I didn’t mean to throw it.  Like there was a box, it had a whole bunch of blankets and I was trying to hold it and my mom got pissed at me. So I put it back in and I like tossed it in. Whatever and I didn’t like throw it. Whatever. I don’t think it has to do with that; cause animals, it has nothing to do with frick’in hitting them once.  If you hit them once ok whatever, they get over it.  But something to do with something else.  I think the cat’s racist; because she’s black and I’m white; and she only likes my mom because my mom feeds her.” She said.
The definition of ‘cat’ to Betty is expanding exponentially: The ‘cat’ is now a snapping, pissed off, hissing, bipolar, football suited to be thrown, tossed, not thrown, to be hit once, racist thing called a ‘cat’, which is related to mother since the cat is black and Betty is Caucasian and fed by the mother.
16   “A racist cat.  Never heard of one before.” I said.
17   “My mother thinks that I walk all over her, like with the cat.” She said.
Now the ‘cat’ = mother.  Mother thinks that the Betty walks all over the cat and herself.
18   “I don’t remember that. I don’t walk all over her at all, I always ask her can I do this can I do that and I whatever.  In the past yeah; but now, no.” She said.
Paraphrased: I used to walk all over her in the past, but not now and besides, I don’t remember anyway.
19   “How do you do at home when she says no. You ask her about something you want to do and she says no.” I said.
20     “Then I just take it as ok maybe later. She sucks, because I went straight from Colorado and I was home for like almost two weeks and then I came here.  It’s not like I even got a chance to even see if I could come home from Colorado and do good. So, I don’t now.  It’s frustrating.  I just want to go home. Uh, I’m frustrated you know.” She said.
21    “Want some Cheese It’s?” She said.
Back to T-Shirt Betty
For the sake of simplifying the S1→ S2→S3 →S4  …Sn model, I have, in this discussion, designated  “→” the investigator of, for example, S1 or as constructed,   an investigator/connector which leads to the following S.

The concept of ‘leading to the following S’ is extremely problematic.  With adolescents, as well as adults, we have no way of knowing what the following S may be unless we are lead there.  Should we presume we know the ‘next’ S and the pathway to it, the fabric of the analysis is shredded. That this is so results from the fact that we are providing pathways to an S, both of which are truly unknowable. We, in that instance, have fallen back on our theories in the consulting room—-a fatal mistake, especially in the analysis of adolescents.  Worse yet, If we ‘know’ the unknowable and yet lay out the ‘pathway’ to the unknowable, then insult is added to injury.  One more person who doesn’t listen, is full of theories and tries to apply them.

The ‘truth’, S1, of Betty’s ‘cat’ has meanings Betty has  attached to ‘cat’. As the investigation of these ‘truths”  (S’s) were investigated, it was found that ‘cat’ contained many qualities/meanings that one would not ordinarily associate with ‘cat’—e.g. fur, purring, playing, etc.  Or, if they seemed ordinary, these ‘ordinary’ cat elements had idiosyncratic meanings to Betty.  For example, ‘discovered’ elements of S1. etc., (cat hissing, getting pissed off, being racist , mother not wanting to have/take care of Betty, not wanting to feed her) are a partial list of elements of ‘cat’ meanings to Betty.  These ‘cat’ elements also show themselves to lead to actions and reactions between Betty and her mother.  For example, getting the cat to ‘hiss’, ‘get pissed off’, ‘assaulting the ‘cat’ in fact put into action Betty’s ‘cat’ feelings towards the intended object of these actions - her mother.  Hence, contained in S1, are both meanings and actions, which, in this instance, are both discoverable and of great importance.

(Revised 11/4/08)

Cogito ergo Cogito

I think therefore I think

Chapter 11

Part 2

In the case of analyzing adolescents, even if the error is made in considering Theory and Practice to be identical, the absence of any understanding of L (adolescent language) completely alters the psycho-analytic state of affairs.  Even if we, armed with theories in our consulting room, busily looking to ‘find’ S that ‘fits’ T, with adolescents, at least, if ‘adolescent speak’ is not spoken or attempted to be understood, the net result is this:

L_a=Adolescent  Language  S= Statement    T= Theory I= Interpretation

 L_a * S* T = I * L_a

If L_a = 0    Then the above equation is 0 = 0

We have anointed T with a variety of qualities that make it powerful. First and foremost, T (theory) in this model is not functioning as a theory should.  Theories are just that.  They are speculative and virtually always not empirically based. The ‘theories’ we use in terms of their justification cannot rise above the standard of a rationally justified true belief and virtually never even approach that standard of justification. (In a subsequent chapter, I will have a good deal more to say about epistemological justifications as they apply to our field). A rationally justified true belief is not necessarily a statement of fact.  It is still speculation.  Our theories about the functioning of the human mind are speculations, but often said to be facts.  When theories dictate practice, they cease to be theories and become facts, much as in an operating room, for example, where the administration of anesthesia is not a speculative theory, but a fact, a practice, born of scientific research, experimentation and use, and the results studied and evaluated.

In Physical Medicine there are methods for the evaluation of treatments, medications, etc. Attempts at validation of theories in physical medicine often include what are called ‘controlled double blind’ studies. So, for example, let us imagine that there is a theory that drug B will be beneficial to patients who suffer from disease F.  This theory could have been developed in many ways, but usually starts with what is called an individual or small group observation, otherwise known as a ‘case study’.  In our case, from these meager beginnings this, this individual case study seems to be corroborated by other practitioners who treat patients who suffer from F, and have used drug B.  We all know of the variables that can distort ‘corroboration’. For example, the desire to find something that really helps with disease F, a serious disease, can lead people to ‘find’ cures’ and people to corroborate these findings, even though the whole endeavor may be specious.

However, minor experience, theories, etc., may lead to an actual study to determine the usefulness or lack thereof or associated dangers of drug B.  At that point, a study is planned. One of the facets that is most important in such a study is to remove passions and desires of practitioners from the evaluation, as much as possible.  The purpose of this practice is not because people hate practitioners and want to cut them out of work. The purpose is, as much as possible, to make the study rely on ‘facts’, and not the passions and biases of the researchers. Adequate standards for investigation are the foundation of such a study.  Bad standards equal bad evaluations.  This harkens to the somewhat ribald saying regarding computers—-S… in, S… out.

However, once planned, procedures to evaluate drug B are first practiced on many forms of life other than humans.  If the drug passes those tests, many of which are often of dubious value, then testing is begun on humans.  People with and without disease F are randomly assigned to test groups.  People inside these groups, randomly divided in a ‘double blind’ fashion are give drugs or no drugs.  ‘Double Blind’ means that neither the evaluators, or patients, or controls know if the patient is given the drug or not, the amount given, etc.. The purpose of that process is another step designed to make evaluations as unbiased as possible. As a part of evaluation, humans are involved—often physicians.  They are expected to follow certain criteria in their evaluations. Once all this data are compiled, a ‘verdict’ regarding drug B is arrived at. Should the verdict be that this drug B, is useful in the treatment of disease F and doesn’t cause serious drug use ending side effects.  Based on all this, approval by the Federal Drug Administration is sought.

If approved by the FDA, drug B is put on the market.  It is at this time that the most information about drug B is brought to light.  Unfortunately, at this stage, to a large extent, the investigations are now back to individual practitioners doing ‘case studies’, with all the risks that go with such ‘studies’.  As before though, should there be ‘enough’ questions raised about drug B, a new round of testing as outlined above is undertaken.  And so forth.  Out of all of this what was a theory remains partially a theory, but is moved into the realm of ‘fact.’

Psycho-analytic theories should be a part of the experience and learning that rest in the ‘back’ of our minds.  Perhaps a reasonable analogy is that of the relationship of the skeleton to the body.  The role of our skeleton is obviously crucial.  Without the support of our skeleton there will be no person.  But, the skeleton is not the person. Our theories should be the supporting elements for us in Psycho-analysis.  There should be no confusion on this matter.  The skeleton is no more a person than a psycho-analytic theory is a fact.

A New Definition and Use of S

Let us return back to our equation and assume another alternative and define S differently.  This new definition of S is that S is a statement, the dimensions and meanings of which are not known either to the patient or the analyst.  Let us further assume, given the above, that the analyst has no theory that he wishes to promulgate. The technique used in analysis of adolescents follows Freud’s Fundamental Rule: “It will been seen that the rule of giving equal notice to everything is the necessary counterpart to the demand made on the patient that he should communicate everything that occurs to him without criticism or selection.  If the doctor behaves other wise, he is throwing away most of the advantage which results from the patient’s obeying the ‘fundamental rule of psychoanalysis’.  The rule of the doctor may be expressed:  he should withhold all conscious influences from his capacity to attend and give himself over completely to his “unconscious memory”, or, to put it purely in terms of technique:, he should simply listen, and not bother about whether he is keeping any thing in his mind., (what is achieved in this manner will be sufficient for all requirements during the treatment….” (Freud, Standard Edition, Volume 12, pgs 111-112 Papers on Technique, Recommendations to Physicians Practicing Psycho-Analysis)

Put as an equation:

S_1-® S₂®_-S₃ ®_-…S_n    

Each S represents statements made by the adolescent. Each “®” represents a connection between statements.  These connections do not say anything about the quality or specificity of a ‘connection’.  That is to say, except temporally, statements may connect, may not, or may not be known to connect or not to connect.

At each S or ®, questioning, clarifying, gestures, commenting, remembering, connecting, listening quietly, etc., may occur.

None of these statements or connections or investigations are based on any theory or predisposition.

This is a brief portion of a session with a 16 yo boy illustrating these principles. 

1.     “I hate my father because he has my mother.” He said.

(Using our new definition of S, this statement actually, in and of itself, tells us nothing.  S = ?. However, the meaning of it may be found out, or not, by investigation.)

2.     “You say ‘has’?”  I asked.

3.      “Yeah, he is always keeping her away from things she usually does with me and my brother, like making dinner.”  He said.

4.      shrug’. (?) portrays the analyst.

5.      “He is the most self-centered person I have ever seen.  It’s all about him.” He said.

6.      “What’s with that?” I asked.

 7.     “He’s forever telling us that he had a hard childhood which makes him this way and that we just have to be understanding.” He said.

 8.     “Really.” I said.

 9.     “Yeah. What a crock of shit.  He is forever making up stories or just plain lying.  He won’t take           responsibility for anything”. He said.

10.    “I take it you’re not too fond of your father?” I asked.

11.    “You can say that again.” He said.

12.    “I take it you’re not particularly fond of your father.” I laughed.

13.    “That’s another thing.  He has no sense of humor. Everything with him is so serious and usually                 about one or another defect he has. Things at home are just dead serious” He said.

Were I to have used our initial model: S + T = I, the chances that we would have been completely diverted into our theory/facts would be very high. For example, this vignette fairly calls out Oedipal to the Freudian.  To the Kleinian, this vignette might well be a clear illustration of envy of the father, hatred of the mother, the desire to steal the mother for both personal gain and to deprive the father.  Intersubjectivist colleagues would be needed by me to fill in what Intersubjectivist theory/facts would be illustrated by this vignette.

Using our new equation/view, this vignette may be seen as follows:

1₁  “I hate my father because he has my mother” at least as investigated at this point in time, less any fact/rules, is quite different than any of us would expect.  “Has” does not have any sexual connotation. “Mother” is not a sexual being as one might expect, but someone who is stolen away by father, not for sex, but to serve him.  It is also clear that the mother is seen by my patient as a functionary.  It is not clear during this session if she is expected to function as a mother or as a servant.

2_i   “You say ‘has’?”  I asked.  I selected ‘has’ to ask for clarification.  Obviously, I could have selected other elements of the statement to seek to clarify.  ‘Has’ at that time and in subsequent thought seems correct.  “Has my mother”, if possible, is both a provocative and ‘meaningless’ statement, that requires clarification.

3_i “Yeah, he is always keeping her away from things she usually does with me and my brother, like making dinner.”  He said.  Probably in response to ‘has’. He goes on clarifying his views of his parents: He takes, she gives, both at the ‘seeming’ needs of the children

4_i    shrug’. (?) portrays the analyst. I find it particularly useful to keep my inquiries as open ended as possible.  My reason for this is that I don’t wish, if possible, to direct the patient to any statement by the nature of my inquiries. This action presents an interesting dilemma:  There is no doubt that this is a dyadic conversation, but one with a unique set of rules.  Further, there certainly are times when this is not the case.  For example, should there be a contradiction, I often specifically ask about that contradiction, in as non-directive way as possible.

5_i   “He is the most self-centered person I have ever seen.  It’s all about him.” He said.

6_l    “What’s with that?” I asked.  Again I’m curious what he means, but ask in as open-ended way as possible.

7_i    “He’s forever telling us that he had a hard childhood which makes him this way and that we just have to be understanding.” He said.  More about ‘father’.  I say ‘father’ because I really don’t know what he means.  He has told me a number of factors of the person he calls ‘father’, but is about all I can say.  What a ‘father’ or ‘mother’ is to him, I don’t know.

8   “Really.” I said.

9_i   “Yeah. What a crock of shit.  He is forever making up stories or just plain lying.  He won’t take responsibility for anything”. He said.  More elements of the personality of what he calls a ‘father’

10_i   “I take it you’re not too fond of your father?” I asked.  There are clearly times when a sense of humor is very useful with adolescents.  The best I can say as to why ‘then’ and why subsequently is that I don’t know.  Perhaps I could be let off the hook by saying that at that time it ‘felt’ right.  The patient obviously responded well

11_i  “You can say that again.” He said.  More humor.  Again a feeling.  No specific justification. 

12   “I take it you’re not particularly fond of your father.” I laughed.

13_i   “That’s another thing.  He has no sense of humor. Everything with him is so serious and usually about one or another defect he has. Things at home are just dead serious” He said.  Further response to humor and other material.

Summary:  my patient did not feel he was one of my theories; he knew that I took him seriously; interpretations that I made were not intrusive to him, but seemed to have the effect of furthering our analytic investigation; he discussed issues that are clearly important to him (although to me, at least, quite unclear); humorous interpretations seemed to facilitate psycho-analytic investigation; transference was clearly important, me apparently being an idealized version of whatever a ‘father’ is to him; and, finally, clearly he has a constructive and friendly relationship with me.

(Extensively revised 10/18/08)

Cogito ergo Cogito

I think therefore I think

Chapter 11

Part 1

(from 9/18/08 – 10/18/08)

(Accesses: 126,421  Bytes Copied: 1,012,830,187  Visits: 9,656)

Prologue:

“I need not say much about other schools which have branched off from our psycho-analysis.  The fact that they have done so cannot be used either for or against the validity of psycho-analytic theories. You have only to think of the strong emotional factors that make it hard for many people to fit themselves in which others or to subordinate  themselves, and of the greater difficulty justly insisted on by the dictum “Quot capita tot sensus”. (More usually given in the form) When the differences of opinion have gone beyond a certain point, the most sensible thing was to part and thereafter to proceed along our different ways-especially when the theoretical divergence involved a change in practical procedure.  Suppose, for instance, that an analyst attaches little value to the influence of the patients personal past and looks for the causation of neuroses exclusively in present-day motives and in expectations of the future.  In that case he will also neglect the analysis of childhood; he will have to adopt an entirely different technique and will have to make up for the omission of the events from the analysis of childhood by increasing his didactic influence and by directly indicating certain particular aims in life.  We for our part will then say: “this may be a school of wisdom; but it is no longer analysis.”  Or someone else may arrive at the view that the experience of anxiety at birth sows the seed of all later neurotic disturbances. It may thereupon seem to him legitimate to restrict analysis to the consequences of this single impression and to promise therapeutic success from a treatment lasting from 3-4 months.  As you will observe, I have chosen  two examples which start from diametrically opposite premises.  It is an almost universal characteristic of these “secessionist movements” that each of them takes hold of one fragment out of the wealth of themes in psycho-analysis and makes itself independent on the basis of seizure-selecting the instinct from mastery, for instance, or ethical conflict, or the importance of the mother, or genitality, and so on.  If it appears to you that secessions of this sort are already more numerous than to-day in the history of psycho-analysis than in other intellectual movements, I am not sure that I should agree with you.  If it is the case, the responsibility must be laid on the intimate relations which exist in psycho-analysis between theoretic views and therapeutic treatment.  Mere differences of opinion would be tolerable for far longer.  People like accusing us psycho-analysts of intolerance.  The only manifestation of this ugly characteristic has been precisely our parting from those who think differently from us.  No other harm has been done to them.  On the contrary, they have fallen on their feet, and are better off than they were before.  For by their separation they have unusually freed themselves of one of the burdens which weigh us down-the odium of infantile sexuality, perhaps, or the absurdity of symbolism-and are regarded by their environment as passably respectable, which is still not true of those of use who are left behind.  Moreover, apart from one notable exception, it was they who excluded themselves.”  S. Freud. New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, V 22, pp 143-144

I would like to establish an algebraic model of psycho-analysis which will form the basis of much more of both this chapter and this book. To construct this model, I will utilize  mathematical equations.  

The first equation, which is defective, as will be later explained, will be used as a starting place:

S + T = I

S = Statement/truth, T = Theory, and I = Interpretation

The implications of this model are broad and require careful study. This equation and it’s implications, are extremely relevant to the psycho-analytic treatment of adolescents and others.

Let us briefly discuss an imagined psycho-analysis. The analysand’s statement, S, is presumed to be complete, accurate (either consciously, unconsciously, or both) and not a lie.  This presumption is mandatory for this equation, albeit defective, to make any sense at all.  If S were known to be incomplete or inaccurate, the ‘truth’, then, would not be known, removing any meaning from the initial equation as our analyst uses it. The best that could then be is that T = I, a decidedly useless, circular equation, except to our analyst.  Our analyst must hold the belief  that the ‘truth’ (S) of the patient is identical to our analyst’s theory of this particular patient, a theory that he has been taught long before meeting our analysand.  The meeting of our analyst with other analysands will sound very similar.

The meaning of this ‘truth’ is derived from our analyst’s theoretical school, which is always busy, probably unintentionally, finding what it already knew. (see Freud V. 12, pg 111-112) 

Some colleagues of mine, for example, say that they don’t use ‘questions’ and, further, ‘didn’t like them’.  That is to say that their understanding of S is pre-determined. No matter, had these colleagues used ‘questions’ or any other methods to understand statement S, the ‘completion’ would be derived based on looking for material to support the theories known to be true by these analysts.  S, therefore, in this example, becomes inconsequential and irrelevant to an unbiased, observant outsider, but meaningful and supportive of our analyst’s theories. This is so in that S is the product of the intention to fulfill T. In that sense, S is T.  Now our equation is this: T = I.  Theory equals Interpretation.

One of the problems of Theories used in this way, T = I, is that these theories have migrated directly into the consulting room, where they don’t belong. Theories in the consulting room often or always transmute themselves from theories into psycho-analytic facts and psycho-analytic truths. Theory becomes practice.
 “In making the selections, if he follows his expectations he is in danger of never finding anything but what he already knows.” Freud. 

I can speak with authority on this topic. I spent many years in the distant past doing exactly what Freud admonished against. I repeatedly found what I already knew to be present.  Finding what I already knew never felt that way. I was constantly making ‘new’ and exciting ‘discoveries’  which unbeknownst to me, were both not ‘new’ but old and repetitive and theoretical.  I didn’t for a moment, however, during that time of my life, feel I was hearing what I needed to hear.  In fact, to the contrary, what I would ‘hear’ repeatedly confirmed the correctness of theories that I had learned.  The fact that I would find what I already knew which supported theories that I had been taught, further convinced me of their and my correctness.

Further, I knew that I was a great service to my patients. Interpreting the meaning of these ‘truths’, I ‘knew’ that I was helping the patient with what I ‘knew’ to be the ultimately true and correct way of practicing psycho-analysis. Some of my adult  patients improved.  I will examine what I believe to be the source of this improvement later in this book.

Adolescents, however, rarely improved. They did, however, learn and create new and exciting ways of convincing their parents that they were ‘healthy’ or better and needed to leave treatment, post haste. I, of course, debated the adolescent’s diagnosis of their condition. It was popular with my theoretical colleagues to argue forcefully and in the extreme against such departures. For example,  I would explain that their child was probably suicidal and that their life would be worthless but for this mandatory treatment. If that didn’t work, colleagues of my school could be called in for second opinions, which, as one might guess, agreed with me.  One can only imagine the carnage that surrounded this whole procedure.  Initially, the parents were steadfast and kept their adolescent in treatment. ‘Treatment,’ itself, became a  farce.  Treatment became an argument between myself, the adolescent, and their parents. Eventually the adolescent would wear down their parents, and treatment would end.  

Colleagues and I would often discuss, literally, how the failure of other analysts to follow our theories and practices was disastrous for their patients, and could, in the worst cases, amount to actual   murder. By ‘murder’ I mean DEATH. For example, Dr. Ralph Greenson, a prominent Los Angeles Psycho-analyst, who died some years ago, was supposedly the analyst of Marilyn Monroe. The discussion with my colleagues was that he might as well have handed Ms. Monroe a gun on the weekend of her death, since his suggestion that she ‘take a drive by the ocean’ ‘clearly killed’ her. Even though this story only rises to the status of ‘gossip’ and may be totally baseless, it was looked at by both myself and my colleagues, as the ‘truth’.  He had ‘killed’ her. Further, and obviously, the thought was that had she been in treatment with an analyst from our school, she would be alive today. (Of course, one can imagine how this type of zealotry and zeal worked with adolescents- it didn’t and doesn’t)

In addition to many other defects, such theoretical beliefs drastically limit the flexibility that we must have to at least try to understand our adolescent patients, as well as others. On the other hand, however, the practice and theories that I have described, lent a great deal of security and certainty to myself and ciolleagues.  Both I and they ‘knew’ the truth.

The nature of theories is that they are just that, theories, not absolute ‘truths.’. To me, however, theories that I knew, I knew to be the absolute ‘truth’ and as such, had to be used in practice. I was very secure in that I knew that my views were the correct views and certainly not the terribly incorrect views of other analysts who didn’t have the benefit of the real ‘truth’ and utilized the ‘false’ theories of other schools of psycho-analysis.

The ‘truth’ also contains the methods that are needed for the defense of that ‘truth’. The ‘truth’ needs to be defended against attack. Our ‘truth’, if allowed to be successfully attacked, would be destroyed. Our group would have dissolved. This destruction, or fundamental change in our theories, was not acceptable. Some defenses of our  ‘truth’ were the standard array of defenses (here ‘offenses’) known to us  all—denial, splitting, verbal and occasional physical assault, omnipotence, projection, etc. Identification of these defenses or offences were couched in terms which were consistent with our ‘truth’.  If our ‘truth’, for example, sprang from theories about very early childhood, then defense of such a ‘truth’ would be aimed at that period of time.  ‘Envy’, is a defense or offense, which has been and is seen by all of us, both in our practice and elsewhere. Once we had the mind-set that envy originates in very early childhood, our interpretations of envy were couched in terms consistent  with our theories of pathological infancy. With this mind-set, interpretations to both this patient and others were very likely to be fixed and similar, and aimed at infancy.

We have a closed circle in that finding pathological envy is inevitable, inasmuch as the theory is that infantile envy exists and forms a very substantial part of Kleinian Theory of envy and infancy. Therefore, as with other theories, ‘finding’ evidence of pathological, infantile envy  will result in an interpretation of infantile envy ( S + T = I.  S itself is irrelevant since T will modify S to fit T and therefore I = T). Often this interpretation results, particularly in adolescents, in a defense by the patient of themselves, usually understood by the analyst as further evidence of the truth of his interpretation. We analysts spoke to  patients about very early life experiences as though these experiences of infancy were alive and well in adulthood and understandable in adulthood language.  However “For Disorders of thought it is obvious that some problem of this kind has arisen in the infants life and has not been solved.  Yet, it is but a short step from this point to the absurdity of attributing to the infant ideas, thoughts, and concepts about what the grown up calls a “feeling”….” (Bion. Learning from Experience, page 103, footnote 12.2.2)  During the time that I speak of, there was either no Bion (which there was) or if there was a Bion no one heard or understood his caution.  We talked to adults as if they were infants, drawing comparisons of adult feelings to their ‘equivalent’ infantile ‘adult’ feelings, even though no such thing existed.

An adolescent patient said to me:  “I envy my father because he has my mother”.  Utilizing the above criteria, the theories that explain the ‘true’ meaning of this statement are numerous. First, there is the presumption that the statement is concretely true and complete, and that the definitions of the words in the statement are known.  From that point of view, no investigation is required, such as what are the meanings of the words ‘envy’, ‘father’, ‘has’, and ‘mother’, to this patient. In the above model, the truth is already known.  For example, were one a Kleinian, this equation might go this way: being a Kleinian (although this same set of defects applies to virtually all schools of psycho-analysis) material suggestive of early infantile mental  and pathological phenomenon are likely ‘found’. . Such a statement, for example, could reflect an example of envy, envy of the father, the marital couple, envy of the analyst and his wife, envy and destructive impulses towards the interpretations of the analyst, an envious hatred filled assault on his mother, envy of the fathers potency, etc.. Of course the presumption here is that fundamentally, ‘envy’ equals ‘envy’. ‘Envy’ is not a question, not four letters that have an unknown meaning, etc., but an absolutely known entity with meaning known to be attached to a certain, very early point of defective infantile development.

A useful example is this. The patient in this story is me and therefore I will use myself as the subject.  As I have said before, I am no author, have not written much of anything, and but for the last 5 years or so, felt I had nothing to say of any usefulness in writing to others. I did the ordinary things, however including the occasional lecture, many supervisions, directed Linden Center, and had an active practice. Let us assume, for the sake of this discussion, that I am in analysis now (which I am not). Further, let us assume that since I am so interested in writing this book, which I am, I talk about it frequently in my analysis.  Depending on my analysts theoretical point of view, these discussions of mine regarding this book could easily be seen in a variety of ways. In the world of psychopathology, they could be seen as discussions which show grandiose and omnipotent gestures on my part of pretending to be what I am not: showing that there is no need to prepare and be trained as a writer, that babies do not need to be inside the mother, but can just pop out willy-nilly, fully prepared for life, and that I really hated the fact that I needed a mother, but have gotten by that problem by becoming my own mother, complete with my own uterus, womb, breasts, milk, etc., and anointed myself a great writer.

My statements in the circumstance I envision, would not need to be investigated further since their ‘meaning’ would be clear and already ‘match’ with crucial ‘ultimate truths’ of certain analytic theories. My statements, illustrating certain theories which lead to the interpretations which I have listed above.  In one form or another, my writing this book could easily be seen by my analyst as a sign that I was ill.  Could actual analysis be of use to me?  Undoubtedly so. (In giving this example, I have no intent of claiming to be healthy, which would be a questionable conclusion, in any event.  I do omnipotently think I am not severely ill, however.  Nor is it my intent to say anything about this book’s quality or accuracy or usefulness, although all three are superior (sic). In this particular analytic school virtually all material is considered a sign of primitive mental illness and as having it’s origin in very early life. 

For the most part, most of us would not consider trying to analyze a dream without the initial presumption that the manifest content of a dream usually and concretely tells us nothing directly about the dream or it’s meaning to the dreamer.  So we seek the ‘meaning(s)’, of elements of the dream. We would rarely dream (sic) of attempting to interpret a dream without associations. Unfortunately, however, fettered by our S + T = I (beliefs), we likely would ‘investigate’ this dream based on T.  Hence, we would end up with both understandings of the dream and interpretations of the dream in the same way we ‘analyze’ supposedly awake statements.  The associations themselves would be found to satisfy T, and hence would be irrelevant to some and gospel to another.

Having determined the ‘meaning’ of the statement S, which in fact is T, the rest of the session is usually determined. For example, any patient response can be met and defeated by the defenses of the known to be correct interpretation/understanding. For example, should the patient say that an interpretation by the analyst is correct and that the patient’s secret is out, this could be looked at as the patient trying to destroy the truth of the analyst by a sycophantic agreement with the analyst.  Such a statement would likely not be seen, for example, as a complement to the analyst, which it might be.

Should a patient, differently than above, disagree with the interpretation, his disagreement is known to be defensive.  Should the patient simply think that the analyst is wrong, there is no place for a disagreement to be regarded as a disagreement.  For example, he may feel that the analyst’s interpretation is distinctly incorrect and that he is tired of the same old interpretations that he often considers to be wrong.  His disagreement will not be taken as a disagreement but as an assault, which of course, confirms the correctness of the interpretation.  In this scenario a Cigar is never a Cigar.

Once again, from an adolescent’s point of view, this scenario is untenable.  Furthermore, although they may not say as much, a little or a lot of Cigar=Cigar is a welcome relief.

One of the issues that has bothered me extensively in the writing of this book is this.  I could easily imagine the reader concluding that I had departed my subject.  For example, in part of the remainder of this chapter, chapter 11, I refer to mathematical equations.  This may seem to be at best far afield from the psycho-analytic treatment of adolescents.  Yet that is not true.  In my view statements are easily made, but rarely justified.  My intention regarding the analysis of adolescents is to state views I have developed or rediscovered and to justify them.  This latter task, while fascinating to me, is also difficult for me and probably creates a heavy load on the reader.  Please remember that the inspiration for the extensive research that has lead to this book was for me to try to ascertain what particular techniques, practices, etc., that I used to enable me to analyze adolescents.  I analyze ‘rides’ not ‘distances.’

In writing this chapter, I emphasize over and over again, hopefully in non-repetitive and boring ways, the danger to psycho-analysis of theories in the consulting room.  As I have said before, my education, supervision, analysis, etc., were Kleinian. My clinical life has been divided into two major parts: The Kleinian years; and the years thereafter, this latter part being the longest.

For the longest time, the issue that bothered me most with my work was related to Kleinian psycho-analytic practice, which I practiced, and which I equated with Kleinian meta-psychology.  One of the reasons that this equation was made by me, was that in Los Angeles at that time those two topics were in fact melded into one: Theory = Practice.  Nevertheless, if one were disillusioned by one (Kleinian practice), and Kleinian Practice = Kleinian Theory, that then meant one was disillusioned by the other. T=P. The two, T and P were inextricably married.

This marriage was not an awareness, however, that I made at that time. At that time, what I felt to be true was that Kleinian clinical practice, based on a great deal of experience, was to me misguided and became an anathema to me. As Freud said above, I had focused on infantile mental life and decided that that focus explained everything about patients, including adolescents. It obviously doesn’t any more than Freudian Analysis, Self-psychology, and Intersubjectivism explain all about anything.

In the meantime, however, particularly during the writing of this book, I gained what I think is a much clearer understanding of my feelings back then. It has been made clearer and clearer to me that I had made what today is a serious logical mistake, although I don’t think that I could have seen that error then.  For the Kleinians, and this is the crux of the matter, and other psycho-analytic schools, theory and practice are the same. But theory and practice  must be teased apart so that the usefulness of either can be extracted and be able to be discussed, learned from, and used.

The confusion and misuse of Theory as Practice by virtually all schools of psycho-analysis is obviously a problem of monumental proportions to the adolescent. Theories are hated in as much as they rarely have anything to do with the adolescent themselves.   The analysis of adolesents in this light is virtually always impossible.

The analysis of adolescents without a common language is also impossible.  If L (language) is added to the initial equation, the result is as follows. (‘Common language’ here does not mean the ‘same’ language, but one that is developed, keeping both the language of the adolescent and the analyst in mind.  One does not need to be a drug talking, sex talking adolescent for analysts to talk to adolescents about those subjects).

 (L x S)+ T = I x L

L=Language        S= Statement     T= Theory        I= Interpretation

If L or correspondence of L’s is not present, L = 0 and our equation once again is T = T, in the consulting room.

If a psycho-analyst were an honest broker, the correct “I” (interpretation) would be a statement/question such as ‘I don’t understand, could you try to show/teach me again’ (that is, could you help me make something more than 0 out of I?). There is something about such questioning, however said, which is considered an anathema to most of us.  We are supposed to know so we tell the adolescent that we do know, via an interpretation that has absolutely nothing to do with anything except that it may be a regurgitation of some lesson learned somewhere. Adolescents might call it ‘psychobabble’ or a sign of insanity. We must remember that most adolescents are certain that we are crazy or lost in ‘crazy’ theories.  The equation of sums of theory (wrong)( -1 ) with practice (wrong) (-1 ), and not understanding or even trying to understand the language ( -1 ), is far greater than the mathematical sum of -3.  Psycho-analysts, were they thinking this way, would charitably score us as a minus 3. Adolescents would not be nearly as kind.

Betty is a 16 yo girl, almost 17, going on 13.  Working with her presents a number of unique challenges, one being that she also thinks she is ‘young’ for her age, but varies widely in how she can be talked with—-sometimes older, sometimes younger, etc.  This session is the young version of her.

“By the way what’s the deal with the cat?” I asked.

“Um, she took it away from me and I got mad and now the cat doesn’t like me any more, but yet it’ll come up to me and want me to pet it every once and a while and then when I go up to it, it doesn’t want me too.  It’s bipolar.” She said.

“So you have a cat that needs some lithium or something like that?” I said.

“And the only reason I try and pet it; is because it is the only cat in the house, so.” She said.

“So what, she[mom] tells you not too, but you go ahead and do it.” I said.

“Sort of; like I’ll pet it and then she’ll tell me not to any more after I have already pissed it off.” She said.

“So if the cat gets pissed off with you?” I said.

“I mean but sometimes it’s fine; I’ll sit there and pet it and it will be fine and then it will snap.” She said.

“When it snaps what does it do?” I asked.

“Start’s hissing.” She said.

“Does it ever bite you?” I asked.

“No, if it did I’d frickign throw it like a football.” She said.

“Now, that’s kind of what happened before right?” I said.

“And I like animals too. Well, I didn’t mean too throw it, I like; there was a box, it had a whole bunch of blankets and I was trying to hold it and my mom got pissed at me so I put it back in and I like tossed it in whatever and I didn’t like throw it. Whatever. I don’t think it has to do with that; cause animals, it has nothing to do with fricking hitting them once.  If you hit them once ok whatever, they get over it.  But something to do with something else.  I think the cat’s racist; because she’s black and I’m white; and she only only likes my mom because my mom feeds her.” She said.

“A rascist cat.  Never heard of one before.” I said.

“My mother thinks that I walk all over her, like with the cat.” I said.

“I don’t remember that. I don’t walk all over her at all, I always ask her can I do this can I do that and I whatever.  In the past yeah; but now no.” She said.

“How do you do at home when she says no, you ask her about something you want to do and she says no.” I said.

“Then I just take it as ok maybe later. She sucks, because I went straight from Colorado and I was home for like almost two weeks and then I came here.  It’s not like I even got a chance to even see if I could come home from Colorado and do good. So, I don’t now.  It’s frustrating.  I just want to go home. Uh, I’m frustrated you know.  Want some Cheese It’s?” She said

Next Chapter: “Cogito ergo Cogito” (I think therefore I think) - Descartes proves the chapter exists.

Psycho-Analysts Ask—Conjunction Junction What’s Your Function?

Chapter 10

Part 4

One day later than last session. Severe worries about mental health problems.

“I don’t know. I don’t know if I told you this either. We were at XXX residential treatment and it was career week. This cop came and when he walked in everyone got all tense. ‘Fuck there’s a cop here.’ He starts talking and my friend Ashley raises her hand and says, ‘I have a question. Why is it that you cops stereotype so much? Like I’m wearing tight pants and I’m on a skateboard. You guys automatically assume that I’m doing drugs’. He says, ‘ think of it this way. When I walked into the room, what did you guys think – cop. But that’s stereotyping. Cause I’m wearing the clothes does not mean that I’m an actual cop.’ I said ‘No. I wear the clothes that I’m a Bro-hoe, but just because I’m a Bro-hoe doesn’t mean I do drugs. Just cause you’re a cop, doesn’t mean you are an asshole cop.’ I was so proud of myself.” She said.

I laughed.

“That cop pissed me off too. He was like ‘officer’ at some point.” She said.

Silence

“Oh god.” She said frustrated. “ I don’t know what to do.”

“It just seems like your mind keeps coming back to that.” I said.

“You mean Ed?” She asked.

“Yeah.” I said.

“Yeah. Plus. Every time I stop talking. I think of Ed. Oh god!! If he doesn’t call me, I’m going to go crazy. (silence) 18 year old boys are so stupid.” She said. (makes frustrated noises)

“Does it seem to you like, if you say negative things about Ed enough, then you’ll think real negative? As opposed to saying them with your fingers crossed?” I said.

“I don’t know. I guess so.” She said dejectedly.

“If your mother were to listen to all the things we’ve been talking about, would that confirm in her mind, the diagnosis of borderline?” I asked.

“Do you think I’m borderline? Honestly? I won’t get mad.” She said.

“Borderline?” I asked.

“Does that mean No? “ She asked.

“What features do your mom and you use to define ‘borderline’?” I said.

“She said a lot. Well there’s noticing every little thing, being clingy.” She said.

“These are your things about being borderline? Or hers?” I asked.

“No, hers. She read all about it. She has books. Books, books, and books. She has more books on bipolar than borderline. She studies up on them.” She said.

“So sometimes she calls you borderline and sometimes bipolar.” I said.

“No, she says I’m both.” She said.

“What are her diagnoses?” I asked.

“Bipolar, borderline. There’s other stuff. I just can’t remember. She’s diabetic.” She said.

“That’s not a mental health diagnosis” I laughed.

“They tried to diagnosis me with an anxiety disorder. That, I kind of agreed with, but she said (in a nasally voice) ‘no, she’s bipolar and borderline’. It’s true. ADHD I was diagnosed with. He gave me a bunch of packets on that.” She said.

“Should we add in ADHD to you? Or do you think that whole thing was bogus?” I asked.

“I thought that whole thing was bullshit.” She said.

“So we won’t add that.” I said.

“I think I might be ADD, but not ADHD. I’m the most tired person without coffee. I’m like this today because I had coffee. Today, after school I will be knocked out. I sleep after school.” She said.

“So if the XXX residential treatment program psychiatrist was here and he saw that, he would say ‘do you have ADHD?’” I asked.

“Basically. But it’s really hard for me to concentrate in school. Unless I really like it. Like in choir I like it a lot, so I really concentrate. But in scrap-booking, I can’t concentrate on what she’s saying. It’s like ‘what are we doing again?’ But she hates repeating herself and she’s ……” She said.

“I take it that even though you think your mother keeps diagnosing you and some doctors and we keep joking, that you really are worried about something being wrong with you, some mental thing.” I said.

“Wouldn’t you”? She said.

Silence

“I’m scrap-booking in school now.” She said.

“Who’s teaching scrap-booking?” I asked.

“Mrs. Jones.” She answered.

“What do you do in scrap-book?” I asked.

“We make little designs on paper and then put pictures on top of the designs.” She said.

“What pictures?” I asked.

“Like me, or my friends, my family, my dog, or something. I have a whole bunch of pictures in here. She told me to bring them so I brought them.” She said.

Silence

“Oh my god!!” We both start laughing. “I told you, everytime I stop talking. …. My stomach hurts. This is why I think I have anxiety.” She said.

“How about this? You obsess about him. Why don’t we call you Obsessive too?” I asked.

“Is there an Obsessive disorder?” She asked.

“Yes. “ I said.

“Really?” she asked.

“Sure. I’m not saying you are. You might tell your mother and she might want to add that to the list. She doesn’t believe in anxiety disorder.” I teased.

“No. She’d just tie it somehow to borderline.” She said.

“So for her, she will diagnosis borderline pretty much if anything comes along, she’ll include it in with borderline.” I said.

“Yeah. Well, I don’t know. Another reason why she says I’m bipolar is because my dad is too.” She said.

“According to whom?” I asked.

“According to her and the doctor. His brother is taking meds for it. My dad doesn’t take meds for it. He refuses to believe it. Pot doesn’t help.” She said.

“I take it that your father’s ‘problems’ give you even more worries about your state of mental health?” I said

“Like I said, wouldn’t you?” She said

Silence

She laughs.

“You better keep talking.” I said.

“I have to pee.” She said.

“Well, at least you are talking. Like you said if you talk you don’t think about Ed which drives you crazy”. I said.

“Yeah, thinking about peeing helps….this sucks….later.” She said.

Psycho-Analysts Ask—Conjunction Junction What’s Your Function?

Chapter 10

Part 3

New players, new solutions, old solutions, defensive about XXX residential treatment program, and worry about what mother thinks, which she never worried about before about something that sees trivial. And much more details about everything—friends, drugs, police, etc.

Session one day later.

“Hey” I said.

“Not everyone I know went to xxx (residential treatment)”, she laughed.

“Embarrassed about xxx (residential treatment)?” I asked.

“No. Like Trisha. We weren’t in the same grade but I would sleep over and we were the best friends.” She said.

“And she didn’t go to xxx?” I teased.

“I have people in my top 8 that didn’t go to xxx. “ She laughed

“Well so far you’ve mentioned 8 people and 7 of them were at xxx” I said.

“yeah. But not all.” She laughed.

“They call it a top 8 but you can make it a top 24. I have at top 12.” She explained.

“You told me it was a top 8” I said.”

“They call it a top 8. That’s just what they call it because you used to only be able to put 8 people on it. And then Tom, the person who created MySpace, he put it so that you could put 24. I wrote to him a lot at xxx.” She laughed.

“8 out of 24 or 12 or 500. Are you sure Mike didn’t design this by any chance?” I laughed.

“Mike, my therapist?” she said laughing. “no.”

“Sounds like Mike.” I said.

“No. You gotta be kidding. He couldn’t be ever that smart. Tom’s cool. You can ask him questions.” She said.

“How do you get to Tom?” I asked.

“You email him. It takes a while for him to get back to you. ‘cause he’s the creator of MySpace and everyone emails him.” She said.

Silence

“It’s so stupid! Oh. (silence). I hope he calls me! He’s losing me fast. Though maybe it’s the other way around. If he loves me as much as he says he does, or did, or I don’t know what you call it.” She said.

“Either he does, he doesn’t? What’s the other one?” I asked.

Silence.

“I don’t think I told you this. I got all of Ed’s crap together in my room, his pictures, his letters, his cologne, his flower thingies, all the things he gave me, and I put them in a bag and I’m going to give it to his aunt to give to him. And I’m going to put a note in there that says ‘if you don’t want your shit, then throw it away’. I threw away all of Tom’s shit because I hate thinking about him and I don’t care about him anymore. ‘I don’t really like thinking about you, but I thought I would give you the option of keeping the things or not. But then this is all shit anyway, right?’ and that’s the letter.” She said.

Sigh of frustration

“I don’t know, I don’t know man. I’m not calling him! I promised. If I don’t keep this promise, I’m gonna hurt myself so bad. I said that this weekend and what do I do? I call him. Maybe I’ll be too busy. I’m seeing some of my friends from xxx, I have the date, I have an orthodontist appointment.” She said.

“Maybe see Tricia. She does E. It’s really bad. She lives right across the street from me. Saturday, I snuck out and went to across the street to her house. She starts crying and keeps saying ‘I can’t believe you’re back, I can’t believe you’re back’. And I said I can’t believe I’m back either. So I go into her house and we’re sitting there talking. She just filled me in on all I’ve missed. Then we played the Ouija board, which was kinda creepy. “ She said.

Silence.

“How’d the Ouija board thing turn out?” I asked.

“I don’t know. It’s kinda creepy.” She said.

“Do you ask the Ouija board questions?” I asked.

“Yeah.” She answered.

“I’m going to take a shot in the dark about what kind of questions did you ask?” I asked.

“Yeah, it’s what you think. But also that I snuck out.” She said.

“Oh. Sneak out a big deal” I said.

“My mom would kill me. She doesn’t like her at all. I don’t know why. Yeah I do. Drugs and because she didn’t write me when I was at xxxxx. If I was on drugs, I wouldn’t want to write anybody there. I would write to anyone who wrote to me.” She said.

“Sounds to me you were forming a club, a xxxx veterans and newbie club, going to, have been at xxxxx, who you write to, etc..” I said.

“There is a club.” She said.

“Well, no. I have other friends. Like Jessica. She was with me on my 16th birthday when Tom broke up with me. I was sooo drunk, out of my mind, it wasn’t on my birthday, but technically it was because it was after midnight. So he broke up with me on my birthday. I was so completely gone, I was drunk. I was taking shots. Usually I can take 2 shots of Jack and I’m soo gone. I took 4. I couldn’t think, I was crying hysterically. She picked me and Wendy up and I got into the car and she said ‘are you guys drunk. You’re getting in my car, drunk? I can smell it (alcohol).’ She took us to her house. Just our luck we’re driving to Jessica’s house and check-point. Checkpoint! And she’s ‘oh shit, oh shit.’ What do we do? Stupid her and she turns around and the cops see us. And follows us. She turns into someone’s driveway. He pulls us over and says ‘what are you guys doing? Why did you turn?’ He can see me in the back crying hysterically. And Jen is like ‘we’re wanting for our friend here.’ He says ‘why, have you guys been drinking? Why is she crying?’ Jessica says, ‘it’s her birthday and her boyfriend broke up with her.’ He says ‘ you know what, I’m not going to give you a ticket. I’m going to go home and be with my family and I’m going to go to sleep and I’m going to have a good night.’ And then he got onto his bike and just left.” She said.