Uncertain Consequences - Revisited

[Diane]

Scarry puts it this way in The Body In Pain, “Though the capacity to experience physical pain is as primal a fact about the human being as is the capacity to hear, to touch, to desire to fear to hunger it differs from these events and from every other bodily and psychic event by not having an object in the external world. Hearing and touch are of objects outside the boundaries of the body, as desire is of x, fear is fear of y, hunger is hunger for z; but pain is not of or for anything-it is itself alone. This objectlessness, the complete absence of referential content, almost prevents it from being rendered in language..."

For me, Damasio's perspective gave me an "object" to refer to when dealing with pain. It sifted out a scenario that patients can grasp. The object I use is the idea that "the nonconscious creature brain feels threatened by hypoxia." Patients can separate themselves/objectify it from themselves fairly readily, without dissociating (which is a split that happens within the conscious mind and isn't good). Once the separation/objectification is made, it's a lot easier to recruit the conscious awareness of the patient toward solving the problem, it's no longer about them personally suffering. Instead it becomes about them being recruited to help the nonconscious brain feel it can breathe. It's a more active role. It's a caretaking role. New sides get drawn in the inner conflict. On one side is the nonconscious brain (like a wailing baby) feeling like it's suffocating/drowning, not meaning to but taking over the conscious awareness of the person with it. On the other side are three active agents: 1. the patient suffering from the pain, 2. the therapist and 3. the therapist's nervous system, trained, recruited to the task, and willing to help.

Instead of a battle between a patient in a situation of reduced power and control trying heroically to convince a therapist in a role of advantage over them that they have pain ruling their life, the situation is reframed into a simpler task where three, two of which are human minds, are devoted to helping one creature module within the patient, that functioned perfectly and silently until pain began to scream out of it, signalling that has become a bit frantic and derailed.

Creating an "object" to place the pain into is partly a symbolic act which allows distance to be created (creativity is engaged/harnessed) between self and pain one feels. The other part is that the symbol was provided by Damasio's elucidation of what is conscious, what is unconscious, and what is non-conscious, is science-based, physical, actually works this way, is not completely invented. Psychologically it is very useful. You can see people (most) heave a huge sigh of relief on several levels, mostly that they are no longer a 'victim' at the mercy of something inside them that they have no image of or language to use to describe (because now they do), and can start to solve the problem. Then my job is to be their consultant not their fixer, which makes me happy. Win win.

Just read your post Barrett, posted at precisely the same time as this one. (Dermoneuromodulation. That's what it is called now.)
To further your analogy I would like to add that defining an "object" in a patient's thinking as I have described above, or as Moseley/Butler would do by Explaining Pain, is like amping up the (non-nocioceptive) signal into the system, so the receiver at the other end of the telegraph line finds it easier to focus and receive the message without worry or distraction.

[Gil Haight]

I think Luke's point about the temporary worsening of sxs is worth discussing. At first glance it would seem the centralization phenomenon is being violated. What makes it OK in this situation and not during coersive technique is of course central to this discussion. When proceeding with idiomotion, an entirely different set of rules is followed. This is the point I was trying to make about somatic data. These rules are grounded in the absense of conscious will and are so different that our community does not appreciate their existance.
I have found Luke's decription to be common in acute pain treatment and is typically associated with the largest response. Near or actual syncope is very common.
Gil

[Luke Rickards]

When proceeding with idiomotion, an entirely different set of rules is followed. This is the point I was trying to make about somatic data. These rules are grounded in the absense of conscious will and are so different that our community does not appreciate their existance.

Nicely put Gil.

Luke

[Randy Dixon]

I think the divergence in treatment approach is caused by different assumptions about why patients are in pain states. SC believes that pain is often caused by the lack of instinctive corrective movement, that this corrective movement is inhibited in patients but that it can be accessed by the patient. The other approach sees a patient in pain, since they are free to move and are unable to resolve their pain on their own, then they believe the patient is unable to access the movement that would relieve the pain therefore they try to provide that movement for the patient. I believe that the matter of a movement being able to be corrective is accepted by both approaches. If you want to converge the second approach into the first then you must prove, or convincingly demonstrate that a)something is inhibiting, but not extinguishing, the instinct or drive for corrective movement and b) that touch or ideomotion, is sufficient to disinhibit that drive.

Personally, I feel that it is (a) that is the weak link in the argument for SC. I see Diane's approach, NDM is it now? as different from both approaches, although it has elements of each.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy,

No, Simple Contact isn't a "thing" that "believes" anything. Anthropomorphizing a method of communication simply confuses the issues surrounding the theory and method.

People hurt because one or more of the origins of pain are sufficiently present. If mechanical deformation is involved some movement will be necessary for resolution. The movement instinctively done is called ideomotion, and, no, it needn't be proved that "touch disinhibits" it. Touch simply leads to awareness. That needn't be proven.

[nari]

Gil, your point is well taken.

The very fact that neither patient nor therapist actually do anything consciously contrived may well contribute to the surprise sensation. One woman said to me today after corrective movement ceased:
My God, where was I? What was I doing? What were you doing? It felt just wonderful...
She was amazed (and so was I).

Randy,

I wonder what else you think would produce effortless movement impossible to obtain via conscious means, coupled with warmth and softening/relaxation of the tissues palpable by the therapist and sensed by the patient?
Placebo response alone doesn't explain the movement; though it might be argued that some placebo response is present, just as it is with everything we do or hear or feel.

Just curious as to why you feel it must be proven to be 'real'.

Nari

[Randy Dixon]

Why do I think it needs to be proven to be "real"? I don't care that much either way. If you read my post I am simply presenting my ideas about the likely reason others don't adopt/accept this approach even though they are highly knowledgeable about neuroscience.

"produce effortless movement impossible to obtain via conscious means,"

I see two things which you have identified here, effortless movement and impossible to attain via conscious means. Neither of these have been proven or demonstrated convincingly to everyone, or even most. There is no reason for them to accept that this effortless movement is possible for the patient to access if they are not doing so now.

"coupled with warmth and softening/relaxation of the tissues palpable by the therapist and sensed by the patient?"

How is this argument different than the argument that palpation of a spine that is misaligned can be felt by both patient and therapist, manipulation reduces the misaligment and relief is felt by the patient? (or any similar argument) You are making your argument from the perspective of someone who believes and are asking the other person to disprove it.

Barrett,

As I stated both approaches seem to accept that movement is needed for resolution.

"The movement instinctively done is called ideomotion,"

Ok, then the argument is, if it is instinctive, why aren't the patients doing it already?. I chose to call this inhibition. Using Occam's Razor why would we assume that their is a drive being inhibited by some unknown rather than assuming that their is no drive?

"and, no, it needn't be proved that "touch disinhibits" it. Touch simply leads to awareness. That needn't be proven."

I don't see why not. These patients are touched all the time, every therapist is going to touch them. This doesn't lead to self corrective movement. What is it that happens then to elicit this, if not disinhibition, a removal or reversal of whatever has prevented it until this point?

[Luke Rickards]

Randy,

I think Barrett's statement, "Touch simply leads to awareness.", is key here. Yes, it is true that patients are touched all the time, however the nature of this touch will determine the resulting experience, and let's face it, not many therapists touch patients like Barrett does.

Simple Contact presupposes that a particular manner of touch will lead to awareness of intrinsic motor activity. The ensuing expression of this movement is not the result of disinhibition however, it the result of this awareness. Gil explains this much better than me (I think), but in this respect there is also a conscious component here. Although the speed, force and direction of ideomotion will emerge without volition/conscious planning, it is the conscious shift in awareness from externally directed action to the presence of intrinsic movements that leads to their full expression. Remember, "every mental representation of a movement awakens to some degree the actual movement which is its object; and awakens it in a maximum degree whenever it is not kept from so doing by an antagonistic representation present simultaneously to the mind." If the mind is directed towards the presence of instinctive movements by the kind of touch employed in SC, and way from external goals, then ideomotion proceeds spontaneously. There is no disinhibition, just a shift of focus in awareness. Barrett, I hope I haven't misrepresented you here.

The only kind of proof we can ever have that this kind of touch leads to such awareness is the report of the patient. Of course it would be quite possible to formally document that hundreds of people treated this way say, "Yes, when he touched me I felt movement in my body and that it was OK to allow its expression", but what would be the point?

I agree with your comments in response to Nari.

Luke

[Luke Rickards]

Would it be wrong to be "certain" that instinctive movement is always corrective?

I love the a definition of instinct that Jon sent me a while ago -

Instinct: a complex of specific response on the part of an organism to environmental stimuli that is largely hereditary and unalterable though the pattern of behavior through which it is expressed may be modified by learning, that does not involve reason, and that has as its goal the removal of a somatic tension or excitation

If this is the definition of instinct, then one can be certain that instinctive movement is always corrective.

[Diane]

I think finally, it all boils down to this:
Which one are you going to ethically and therapeutically support, if the nonconscious brain wants to go one way, and the conscious slice of the brain in the human organism person in your room is going another way?

I think one solution is to align to ectodermal reasoning first, then recruit the patient's conscious mind to the effort of "helping" the nonconscious nervous system, whether it ends up being a) by just getting out of its way or b) by rescuing it from hypoxia (fortunately the two psychological approaches seem to differ but are so overlapped in practical terms that they end up pretty much indistiguishable):
1. right off the bat educate the patient that there is a nervous system, that it has different parts, that pain is generated from inside it, that it's not their fault but that they can help by altering their behavior in some easy ways;
2. be clear where your loyalty/therapeutic efforts are going to be placed; i.e., with the nonconscious part;
3. how they might be able to assist the process and carry on 24/7 to continue to assist the process;
4. how long said process is likely to take.

I circumvent potential ethical and therapeutic conflict (as in first paragraph above) by using full disclosure and making their agreement part of our contract/ therapeutic seal. I wouldn't even know how to be a mesodermalist anymore.

Very much liked both your posts Luke.

[nari]

OK, so I got it wrong.

However, what I said makes sense to me. That is what I go with, at least for the time being.

Nari

[Raulan2]

Barrett,
I have had the same thoughts that Randy has. Why is simple contact different than other touch? Isn't other touch bringing awareness? Can the ectoderm differentiate Heathen, versus Enlightened touch?

The other question I have is why three out of the four measurements of assessing simple contact are expressed via mesoderm? i.e. warming (vascular), softening (muscle), effortlessness (musculoskeletal movement). i am not sure how to assess surprise?

What proof is there that idiomotor activity is the only movement that can reduce mechanical deformation?

[Diane]

Roulan, why should it matter if the mesoderm is being expressed through? What's important is that which is doing the expressing.

[Jon Newman]

Hi Luke,

If that is not the definition of instinct someone better tell the folks at Merriam-Webster.

Randy, we always have a variety of movements, actions or behaviors to choose from. Typically one gets overtly selected for a given time slice. I suppose that means the others were inhibited but one could also look at it as that they simply weren't selected. This process happens with or without being touched by another thus the touch is actually unnecessary. The affect of touch itself can be appreciated through many of Eric's recent posts. I think the importance of the role it plays in Simple Contact (which is not itself a special type of touch) is that it does appear to be a catalyst for correction.

[Barrett Dorko]

Expanding upon the Pony Express analogy, I see myself as a telegraph operator, not as some sort of heroic, solitary figure braving the dangerous frontier with little to rely upon other that my wits and strength. Of course, it is exactly that image that compels us to remember and honor the men who did this. There are three Pony Express museums still thriving and several of the riders remain well-known figures to historians. Nothing about the telegraph or the operators compares.

Coercion of the nervous system as suggested by others runs smack into the fractal geometry of this organ that not only identifies the chaotic and nonlinear nature of the activity within it, it makes a predictable response to provocation virtually impossible. I Googled “Nervous tissue” and “fractal” and got a bunch of hits. I even understood some of what was said on some of these sites. I said “some.”

The coercive therapist/Pony Express Rider enters the fractal realm/countryside at great risk and no real speed. Conversely, the Simple Contacter/telegraph operator “rises above” all of this through the wires strung, in effect, in a linear fashion.

Does that make any sense?

Raulan,

“Enlightened”? “Heathen”? This is supposed to be funny?

You actually took my workshop. Don’t you remember the hour I did about touch and its various aspects?