Sunday, August 4, 2013

The Revolutionary Function of the Primal Therapy.


The Revolutionary Function of the Primal Therapy.

Dr. Janov's Reflection about Reform and Revolution (The Difference between Reform and Revolution) inspires thoughts and comments. After 40 years of contact with the Primal Therapy, the mix / solution of own experiences gradually has precipitated crystals that I want to highlight and put in relief to your potential, Revolutionary 6-step recipe, which the current psychotherapy paradigm staunchly keeps at bay. I'm probably one of the patients who had the most advantages of the therapy that you introduced 47 years ago. Fortunate circumstances provided me with prerequisites both from mental, physiological, social and economic point of view, long-term, to adapt my life according to the structure of the 6 “It means...” to apply and be guided by your innovative theory of “Evolution in Reverse.”

During my extensive epileptic journey, the theory behind the Primal Therapy became a lifestyle that opened my eyes to the Evolutionary Stable Strategies that allow the human species to continue to survive, despite the fact that we as individuals only live during a (sometimes unnecessarily) limited time. Our emotional denial of death like our ambition of continued individual existence, probably, reflects the evolutionary stable strategies, which seek to prevent depression and anxiety.

To me, the revolutionary part of PT consists in revealing the cognitive “lies” in the evolution and accept / feel the pain propelled anxiety. It is not without concern that I see my own limitations but I'm now able, in any case, to avoid a false peace of mind with neurotic lies. The memories into how my epilepsy previously constantly reminded me of my birth trauma never gave me the opportunity, for a long time, to seal my leaky gates with repressions and a neurotic life pattern.

Your six “It means...” is a must. None of them can be eliminated. However, I would add an additional seventh "It means": "That the doctor and the patient must agree / be aware of that the right conditions for economic, social (family, close relationships, etc.) and regular monitoring exist.” The doctor who has a crucial responsibility, must have reasonable assurance that the conditions are met, so that the patient can meet the conditions to undergo PT and will not be left to drift  more vulnerable than he/she was when the treatment started, due to lack of resources.

The revolutionary PT model is extremely costly in comparison with the current treatment paradigm. Even now, the majority of traditional psychologists and psychiatrists turned the 50-minute treatments to prescription writing for 10-15 minutes. With your, justified, demands for “unlimited” duration for patients, costs rise dramatically to levels that only a wealthy few are able to pay for a limited time. In a time of exploding health care costs, the “market” is forced to prioritize the reform model. Your revolutionary PT model requires first a political revolution of a magnitude that, in any event, no American dare to consider.

PT was a potential revolution when it began 47 years ago. In PT's fight agains certain effects of evolution with its stable strategies for the human species' survival, PT best served as proof that evolution is functionally effective as a long term condition if we do not get our individual, unconditional need for love, touch and appreciation met.

To spread the word about the tremendous importance of parenting, childbirth and Life before Birth is now the most realistic and revolutionary task for PT. All based on the knowledge about the primal principles and “Evolution in Reverse”.

Jan Johnsson


1 comment:

  1. I whole-heartedly agree with the principle behind your Number Seven: "That the doctor and the patient must agree / be aware of that the right conditions for economic, social (family, close relationships, etc.) and regular monitoring exist.”

    Is the difficulty here that are we asking that the doctor also become social worker, financial advisor, relationship coach? Perhaps we are. Are we saying that and as long as society is not organised to adequately support individuals conducting therapeutic regimes as financially demanding, and as potentially disruptive, as Primal Therapy, we need to ask to the professional Primal practitioner to become both therapist and welfare guardian?

    ReplyDelete