Comments on Shrinking O by Scott Miller

There's a strange beauty to that picture. Maybe we agree really, and are saying the same thing because in that way, trauma is itself beautiful. I think that's fair in connection with your description. It would only be relevant however to births and deaths that are a natural reflection of the big bang. Trauma without extra traumatization. Peaceful trauma.

I think that birth is as variable as death. I agree that it is a huge deal. So is death. That's why they both matter so much from a spiritual perspective. But I think both things can be equally radiant and beautiful for some people. The Buddha's death was supposed to have been amazingly glorious. Then his mom died and do think that trauma affected everything after that. Some Buddhists believe it caused him to be relatively misogynistic for a realized being. His death wasn't so great. We all know about Jesus' death. I still believe some are radiant and beautiful. I witnessed my father's passing and it was more than peaceful. It gave me a tremendous amount of hope.

Now we're getting somewhere on a therapy level, Frog. Of course, I know you're kidding, but I'm just saying...

There's trauma and then there's trauma. Rape, molestation, witnessing murders, etc. are things not everyone experiences and there's degrees of those trauma-traumas too. My bet is that the therapist who leapt out the window had experienced more than the trauma of birth--way more.

That's horrible. Unfortunately, it is true that a lot of mental health professionals are very troubled. It makes sense, actually, because troubled people get interested in mental health on a personal level and then pursue it on a business level. Same thing happens with yoga. Lots of yoga teachers are really troubled. Again, it follows because they took up yoga to help themselves out, got good at it, and then became teachers. Their intensions are good, but they don't really have any business being yoga teachers because even though they're a lot better off than they were before taking up yoga, they're still troubled. It's an age old issue, though. People who have experienced trauma understand the experience directly and can work with people as therapists or yoga teachers because they can relate to the problems clients and students have. People who have not been traumatized are healthier. They don't generally jump out of windows.

Dead wrong. You're playing both ends against the not holding center there, Frog. What doesn't follow is that psychoanalysis can only work with personal, "sufficient" contact. It's actually the reverse. When a therapist sees someone cold off the street and can only work with what the client presents in session, it's very difficult to determine how they would act out in public. It's easy to determine what's happening psychoanalytically when you get to see how a person behaves in such a wide variety of situations and you get to read all of his books and know so much about his history from other peoples' perspectives. The idea that we're incapable of reading someone publically in a way that gives us insight into who they are is itself dissociative and once again lacking in creativity. You're a creative being, Frog, but you do your absolute damndest to deny how insightful humans can be. And, yes, I'm dragging up the Cornel W thing again. He's a "gasbag." Frank's "babbling." Anyone who speaks through inspiration and creative instinct is a problem for you. It's threatening. You're threatened easily because you have an internal voice that is disapproving. I can know that even though I've never met you. But I'm probably just babbling.

Great clarification there, CK.

My wife and I have an agreement that when one of us asks the other for a clarification of why we feel a certain way, and the other person complies, then that has to be respected. If it's not, we say, "Asked and answered." I asked Bob to clarify his position. He has done so. It's not easy but I'm going to recognize the "Asked and Answered" reality.

It's true that Frank leaves himself an out. He's a smart guy who realizes that what plays out with people is complex. But I think you might have tried to be sneaky here. Jumping from Rock's dreams to "In a true crisis, the only accommodation would be conflict" is a leap that maybe you're just trying to slip in here. Nice try.

Right. I would further the point by making it even clearer that Frank disagrees with CR and does a good job of explaining why he believes Obama is not capable of any gangster shit even in a second term. And we will probably see that reality play out so at the end of Obama's second term, everyone remember this thread. Frank will be proven right.

Again, I'll play CK here and ask you to state specifically what you disagree with about Frank's analysis of Obama. I realize you think there's a problem because he doesn't really know Obama and that his science is junk, but please humor me if you can and point out what you think he's actually wrong about specifically.

That's a much more reasonable point, Bob. Your ego keeps you from just retracting an overstated accusation, but I appreciate the fact that you pretty much admit that since Dr. Frank gives factual backup for his statements that even if he's wrong he obviously wasn't dissociating. He was neither daydreaming nor speaking from a fugue state, or anything in between those extremes. I disagree with you still, but now you're at least stating an opinion about the validity of his statements from a scientific perspective. You're opinion is your opinion and I will refrain from "psychoanalying" your misspelling of the word psychoanalyzing from a Freudian perspective not because I don't consider it junk science but because it's just too easy from a Sphinxter perspective.

I was just keeping to the Dr. Frank issue, using the fact that he backs up his statements as evidence that, right or wrong, he at least makes reality-based statements. Bob and Miggs claimed otherwise. As you know, what millions of people are attracted to can be as sick as what one sick person is attracted to.

I agree that O and B roles might reverse in private. Kind of like the Calamity Jane (I think) and the Brothel Owner lesbian relationship in Deadwood. Remember? They reversed roles in private really brilliantly.
The Dr. Frank video was great. Thanks for the encouragement. Miggs should note that he backs his statement up, telling us he got the info from a news paper and didn't just make it up. Granted, the Bush is cruel, Cheney is mean idea is more out-there than what he wrote about O. But even that idea is not dissociative. He connects it to the reality we all experience, with indisputable aspects to the point like Bush being a frat-boy. He was. We all know that. He didn't make that up. Did he make up the hanger branding thing? It could be researched and I'll be he's not lying about it being in the paper. This would be the kind of thing worth betting on. I would say to Bob and Miggs; "I'll bet we can find the branding article in the paper. Let's put a 100 bucks on it and the loser has to admit that it proves that Frank either dissociates or he doesn't. It wouldn't really be proof, but that wouldn't be the point. In fact, I bet neither Bob nor Miggs would take the wager.

I made up making it up. The scene is real. I'll do the click but I knew that was what Miggs was referencing. That's fine. But as you always point out, it would be nice if Miggs would point out what he thinks is made up in the actual posted piece.

I'll play CK here. Miggs, what is made up? He backs up all of his ideas with clear references to Obama's own writing. What more substantiation is needed. Yes, he could be wrong. He's not but he could be. Yes, he may be a born again recovering drunk ex-frat-boy like W. But he's clearly not just making things up. I'll just make something up. I feel like the guy in Poltergeist when he goes over to the next door neighbor's house to ask the guy if he's seen any ghost. The neighbor comes to the door and right when he does, there's a mosquito attack. The guy decides to ask his neighbor about the mosquitos just to break the ice but the neighbor doesn't know what he's talking about. He's never noticed the mosquitos. So the guy realizes it's hopeless. The real issue is the ghosts but his neighbor is so blind to reality that they can't even discuss mosquitos. How are they ever going to discuss ghosts when the neighbor doesn't even recognize the bugs? But here, there's a twist. You see bugs everywhere. We can't get to the ghost issue because you're seeing bugs everywhere and that's made it impossible to discuss ghosts. Now, I just made that up. You see the difference?

Actually, Dr. Frank couldn't be more accurate. He's stating the obvious, really, with his point about O being so different in front of a crowd and his explanation for it standing out as the one notably illuminating insight. I can't imagine what Bob finds "dissociative" about his statements. They couldn't be more connected to the reality we have all witnessed. It always surprises me when the otherwise thoughtful and intelligent Bob suddenly comes up with something so bizarre. Really, Bob, what's there to even disagree with about this article, much less refer to as dissociative? It's basically what every mental health professional I know says about O, and I'm sure it's what most psychologists in the country think.