A 40 year revolution - an oxymoron!

Janov's Reflections on the Human Condition

The Difference between Reform and Revolution

(Click to access!)




My comment:

A 40 year revolution - an oxymoron!

“ Neurosis is systemic and it is everywhere in us. We must take into account the entire organism, in order to reverse the present psychotherapy approach, and avoid not to suppress the patient. We need to allow for “evolutionary time” getting down there.  Getting to the generating sources in the brain and reversing the imprint means altering the brain circuity, which leads to a basic change in our biochemistry”.

It is easy to agree with everything you mention in this paragraph. It takes time and requires a lot of patience (often up to several years, which requires highly qualified resources, guidance and (ay ay ay) money.

A revolution is a sudden radical and pervasive change in ideas, methods etc. Primal Therapy has been around for more than 40 years, a too long transition to be considered a revolution.

What we now need by the help of Primal Therapy is a long expected reform of the Freudian psychotherapy-revolution which introduced clinical techniques in an attempt to help neurotics. Freud’s innovation has for decades proved to be a decent but insufficient, short-term, help. It is in need of innovations and modern techniques that, if possible, can cure the patients.

I and others have said it before and I will repeat it again. The Primal approach to psychotherapy is far too narrow which is a pity now when there is such a need for a drastic change to reform the old psychotherapy which has entered into a dead end. Why? Because the dominating part of the society being slave under the evolutionary capabilities to use language to suppress feelings and to disengage itself from painful feelings.

A “revolution” started with few supporters takes a long time to implement.

Jan Johnsson

AnonymousApril 3, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Hi Jan,

listen, how do you understand decent and insufficient together. in my reading decent is good and insufficient is bad, let's say it to simplify. how come you mean a therapy is good (helping the patient) and then insufficient (not helping the patient) - how can Freudians be good if they do not achieve anything?

Paul

My comment:

Decent, but insufficient

 A psychotherapy may be decent (“good” in a modest way put into relation of the dominating recognized standards, which patients are being offered under the present treatment paradigm) at treating symptoms but at the same time insufficient when it comes to curing the imprinted pain of a patient. 

So yes, something can both be decent / (modestly) good and insufficient  at the same time.

Jan Johnsson