Secure Enough to Be Spontaneous

Guest blog by Hans Jorg Stahlschmidt, Ph.D., PACT faculty, Berkeley CA, website: http://www.stahlschmidt-therapy.com/

Burnout is common among psychotherapists. Countless articles and books deal with reasons for and prevention of burnout. However, some instances of burnout are nearly impossible to prevent, given dysfunctional institutional settings, demanding and taxing work hours, and a difficult and acting out clientele. Many commentators have opined that psychotherapists may lack sufficient self-care to counter the ongoing stress of dealing with the psychological pain and trauma of their patients, especially in the context of isolation characteristic of this profession.

For me, becoming a PACT therapist has proven to be the best burnout prevention. This approach requires a strong therapeutic frame and a complex set of skills that is rooted in a defined conceptual foundation. It also allows a freedom I have not experienced in other therapeutic approaches. This is the freedom to make use of one’s self and to allow spontaneity in the therapy room. This, in turn, makes work not only more fun and more exciting, but also more rewarding.

PACT focuses on the expressions and signals of the autonomic nervous system. PACT therapy is a bottom-up, show-me process. As therapists, we have to know about our own facial expressions, gestures, and how we come across to others, so we can regulate more intentionally and effectively. To be master regulators who can facilitate a more real, truthful, and authentic relationship between partners, we have to be able to regulate ourselves.

The emphasis in PACT is on “regulating,” which does not mean controlling or being neutral or reserved. I remember being in a psychoanalytic training group 22 years ago and feeling I had to apply a sense of carefulness and guardedness because self-expression that revealed too much about my personhood would contaminate the therapeutic work. That stance required me to exhibit reserve and the control of emotional expression in order to be seen as a neutral figure upon whom the patient could project his or her inner processes. The interaction was limited, and spontaneity rare.

As humans, we can feel and see the difference between a limbic smile and a social smile. Our patients can detect the difference between artificial warmth and authentic warmth, and between simulated empathy and authentic empathy. Because we are in the business of limbic regulation, as therapists we can’t rely on social and artificial signaling in our interactions with couples. We have to be able to bring into play real responses.

Our patients can detect our fear and will not trust us if we pretend. If we are overly guarded, we will not be effective in our attempts to move a couple toward secure functioning. We need both a sense of our own security and a sense of freedom to be able to let feelings, thoughts, impulses, and desires arise and guide our interactions so they do not create a “minefield” and resemble the more careful and guarded stance of previous approaches.

My freedom starts when I greet a couple in the waiting room. I am really happy to see them. I look forward to being with them. I can’t help but smile. I think it is a limbic smile. It is part of “falling in love” with the couples with whom I work. Ten years ago, I did not always fall in love with the couples with whom I worked. But now I do.

An essential challenge to becoming a PACT therapist is to move oneself toward secure functioning. With a stance of secure functioning, the internal regulatory and emotional field of the therapist is not experienced as a minefield that necessitates stepping carefully and gingerly. Rather, the internal vicissitudes can be trusted, and the freedom to risk spontaneous expression can be modeled for the couple.

According to PACT, a therapist is more like a host who can make the couple feel at ease than like an intimidating expert. PACT therapists develop the capacity to relax and then move in. They find a rhythm in their work that includes spontaneity and the ability to trust their own sources of inspiration. In the words of Stan Tatkin, we move from inspiration rather than pressure.

© 2003-2014 – Stan Tatkin, PsyD – all rights reserved

Betrayal Causes Trauma

In matters of betrayal—lying, cheating, stealing—the breach of the attachment system is acute and often long lasting and can be understood neurologically as a trauma-related problem.

Franklin and Zeynep, a couple in their early 40s with two young children, came to therapy because of a discovered set of sexual affairs. Franklin, an American-born academician, was found to have an affair with one of his students. Zeynep, a Turkish-born emergency room nurse, discovered the affair after accidentally viewing Franklin’s phone text messages. The texts were explicitly sexual and contained incontrovertible evidence of Franklin’s deceptions and betrayals. Although Franklin was contrite and desperately wanted to be let back into the relationship, he had great difficulty dealing with Zeynep’s unrelenting preoccupation with his affair. She wanted to know details. Fearful of making matters worse, he refused to give details. Zeynep would wake up in the middle of the night crying, and suddenly burst into a rage while they drove to dinner. She did not want Franklin to touch her. He was not to sleep in their marital bed. Franklin’s patience was at an end. He began to believe that Zeynep was purposely punishing him and was invested in making his life a living hell. Neither partner wanted the relationship to end, but neither could escape the strong wake of the betrayal itself.

PACT therapists will recognize that betrayal by a primary attachment figure is likely to be processed as trauma. Betrayals in adult romantic partnerships most commonly revolve around sex and/or finances, but central to all betrayals is the matter of deception. Partners who feel deceived by their loved ones suffer a particular kind of loss that can affect the historical memory of that relationship. Deceived partners will review the entire relationship in an attempt to reorganize their experiences of self and other. This review reorients the memory toward doubt, fear, and rage. In Zeynep’s case, we see that she could not stop thinking about Franklin’s betrayal and demanding details. Even though he did not provide details, her brain filled in its own details, which fed her doubt and fear. Flooded by these emotions, she would alternately withdraw from him and rage at him.

Once initiated, this review process cannot be interrupted because the brain must reorganize and adapt to the new information. As in PTSD, the brain and body must metabolize the trauma and cope with amygdalar hyperactivity as the amygdala responds to multiple internal and external triggers. However, different from PTSD, betrayal forces a hippocampal review and re-contextualization of the past with new information from the present. PTSD usually does not compel the brain to review past events; in fact, victims of PTSD commonly wish to avoid any review of the traumatic event, and their hippocampal function can be compromised by the traumatic event.

Betrayal, therefore, usually leads to a preoccupation with the new reality-shattering information. This presents an enormous challenge to the couple attempting to recover from it. Like Zeynep, the victim cannot stop being preoccupied with the past, present, and future, nor escape the emotional volatility that accompanies this process. The perpetrator therefore must tolerate the other partner’s perseveration and emotional volatility, as well as the constant questioning, grief, and anger that come with the healing process. In this case, Franklin had to learn patience for the couple to have any chance at rebuilding their relationship. Somewhat ironically, the perpetrator is in a unique position as not only the cause of the trauma but also its solution. This is not an easy task for the perpetrator to perform. Yet, the PACT therapist takes the position that the betraying partner must provide ongoing and sufficient support to regulate disturbing states related to the trauma whenever they arise.

Copyright © 2003-2014 Stan Tatkin, PsyD – all rights reserved

The Deal Breaker

A deal breaker is an issue that looks like it cannot be solved. Many couples face issues related to religion or sexuality or money or children. They might feel—and you might think—such deal breakers must lead to the end of the relationship.

For instance, one partner says, “I must have children or my life won’t be worth living.”

The other says with equal strength, “I’m not the parent type. I don’t even like children and I will never have one.”

After a long pause, the first says, “Okay. We should buy a house together.”

Or perhaps one partner says, “I want my children raised as Muslims. That’s nonnegotiable.”

The other says, “I want my children raised Catholic. That’s how it’s going to be.”

One of them follows this deal breaker with, “Have you decided whether you want go to Hawaii this year for Christmas?”

Notice this tendency to kick the can down the road. Why do so many couples avoid deal-breaker issues or simply defer them? The answer may seem obvious. When partners are at the precipice of the cliff that represents the end of their relationship, they flinch. Nobody wants to break up. Relationships are sticky like that. “Say it ain’t so!” And so it isn’t.

Islands, and waves, and even anchors may opt to bend reality and defer loss. However, couples with deal breakers in their basement inevitably seek therapy to circumnavigate the proverbial elephant in the room that just won’t go away. The therapist can’t help but feel their pain, feel the sense of impending doom that has been buried so partners can enjoy another month, another year, or a decade without having to face reality.

But is every deal breaker an actual deal breaker? From the PACT point of view, often it is not.

Because couples indulge in kick-the-can-down-the-road avoidance, they have no reason to believe denial isn’t the best course of action. However, a PACT therapist can help the couple arrive at a creative solution that is win-win—a solution that leaves no residue and has no victim and no perpetrator. For this to happen, partners need to be held with their feet at the edge of the cliff.

“Necessity is the mother of invention.” So, supposedly, said Plato. In this case, necessity places the couple between a rock and a hard place and holds them there. Perhaps the rock is what they absolutely insist upon, and the hard place represents the consequences for ensuring they get what they want. For a couple not dealing with a deal breaker, the consequence is most certainly loss.

I think it is very difficult for the average couple to do this on their own. I suspect anchors would be more readily able to make sacrifices needed to assuage abandonment fears. Although making choices that could end a relationship has never been nor will ever be easy, a PACT therapist can help partners see their way through what looks like a foregone conclusion. When I hold a couple in a deal-breaker tension, I bite my nails along with the couple as we face the potential end of their relationship. My only solace is my faith in the human capacity to create solutions where none seem possible.

It is only under conditions in which partners must choose between this or that and accept their losses that win-win accords can be forged. The PACT therapist must be the villain in this scenario. Forcing partners who have been avoiding their deal-breaker issue to resolve it once and for all is a radical move. However, I believe it is the PACT therapist’s duty to guide couples toward a real future and not conspire in the very human tendency to bend reality in the face of loss.

Copyright © 2003-2014 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. – all rights reserved

2014 Annual Interpersonal Neurobiology Conference at UCLA

uclaJoin me, Allan Schore, Dan Siegel, Sir Richard Bowlby, Philip Bromberg, Pat Ogden, Lou Cozolino, Gay Bradshaw, Alex Katehakis, Drew Pinsky, Margaret Wilkinson, Ruth Lanius, Darcia Narvaez, Jennifer McIntosh, Christopher Kennedy Lawford, and Judith R. Schore for this year’s annual UCLA conference sponsored by Lifespan Learning. UCLA March 14-16 2014, Brochure

The Ten Commandments for a Secure-Functioning Relationship

  1. Thou shalt protect the safety and security of thy relationship at all costs.
  2. Thou shalt base thy relationship on true mutuality, remembering that all decisions and actions must be good for thee AND for thine partner.
  3. Thou shalt not threaten the existence of the relationship, for so doing would benefit no one.
  4. Thou shalt appoint thy partner as go-to person for all matters, making certain thy partner is first to know—not second, third, or fourth—in all matters of importance.
  5. Thou shalt provide a tether to thy partner all the days and nights of thy life, and never fail to greet thy partner with good cheer.
  6. Thou shalt protect thy partner in public and in private from harmful elements, including thyself.
  7. Thou shall put thy partner to bed each night and awaken with thy partner each morning.
  8. Thou shalt correct all errors, including injustices and injuries, at once or as soon as possible, and not make dispute of who was the original perpetrator.
  9. Thou shalt gaze lovingly upon thy partner daily and make frequent and meaningful gestures of appreciation, admiration, and gratitude.
  10. Thou shalt learn thy partner well and master the ways of seduction, influence, and persuasion, without the use of fear or threat.

Tatkin, S. (2011). Ten Commandments for a Secure-Functioning Relationship. In J. K. Zeig & T. Kulbatski (Eds.), For Couples: Ten Commandments for Every Aspect of Your Relationship Journey. Phoenix: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, Inc. Publishers.

© 2003-2013 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. — all rights reserved

No Pain No Gain

Therapy is only useful for changing people who are experiencing sufficient distress. This is not to say that education, consultation, or brief counseling will have no effect. People often benefit from couple counseling for premarital or other short-term work. However, as a matter of therapeutic stance, the PACT therapist assumes the presence of a sufficient level of distress that can only be relieved by pressuring couples to go down the tube of secure functioning. The PACT therapist thus takes a stand for secure-functioning principles. For insecure partners, this requires a big leap of faith.

That leap of faith can be viewed as a metaphor for neuronal action potential (AP) and long-term potentiation (LTP). AP is basically a charge that is sufficient to fire a neuron. LTP is a cellular mechanism related to learning and memory. LTP involves the building up of synaptic strength between neurons, whereby several weak synapses repeatedly fire simultaneously to create a new (or reinforce an old) neuropathway. In therapy, LTP can be associated with the aha experience of “getting it.”

Insecure partners do not have any experience in their historical record that can serve as proof that a secure-functioning model would be good for them. Insecures may be attracted to the menu of secure-functioning principles, but should not be expected to know what the food tastes like or if they would like it. Remember that insecure models are fundamentally unjust, unfair, and insensitive and that relationships do not come first. Therefore, insecure partners have no reason to believe in the therapist’s belief in secure functioning. In a manner of speaking, insecure individuals, like connecting neurons, must cross a synaptic cleft of unknowing in order to forge a new neuropathway that represents new knowledge. In systems theory, this is first-order change. In Piagetian terms, this is accommodation.

So what builds LTP in the insecure partner or couple?

1. Pain
2. Focused, coherent therapeutic stance
3. Pressure

Pain
Without pain, the therapist’s tools are useless. No pain, no gain. Pain is a huge motivator because it opens the mind to influence. If partners are not in distress, the therapist is without leverage to convert their pain into increased complexity and neuronal growth. This alchemical process of using distress to convert lower social-emotional complexity into higher social-emotional complexity is an essential aspect of LTP, and of the neuroplasticity needed for change to occur.

The PACT therapist must locate each partner’s pain and amplify it. If one partner is without distress, both the therapist and the other partner are rendered helpless. Therefore, the therapist must locate the pain of the non-distressed partner, amplify it, and then leverage it for change. Finding and leveraging the pain creates interest, which creates AP in the brain.

Focused, coherent therapeutic stance
The PACT therapist maintains a clear, focused, and coherent narrative (therapeutic stance) that is secure functioning. The therapist maintains a clear image and set of goals that point toward secure functioning and away from insecure models of relating. This clarity is expressed through repetition of the therapeutic narrative, which creates interest and in turn creates AP in the brain. Repetition greatly contributes to LTP. Therapy, in essence, involves repetition, both in the patient’s psychobiological response to inter- and intra-relational stress and in the therapist’s focused, coherent therapeutic stance, which points the way forward on a path toward relief.

Pressure
The PACT therapist applies continuous pressure on partners to perform in a secure-functioning manner. This pressure is like pushing partners down a tube that both focuses and limits behavior and attitude. The combination of pressure, focus, and limitation also forces feelings and emotions to arise. For instance, when the therapist expects partners to demonstrate developmental complexity, they will expose their limitations, along with the pain (e.g., fears of abandonment and engulfment) that underlies their developmental delays. Pressure, support, and expectation promote interest, which creates AP in the brain and contributes to LTP.

Conclusion
The PACT therapist creates neuroplasticity through LTP and AP in the insecure couple (or partner) by locating, amplifying, and leveraging pain and distress toward a secure-functioning model of relating, and maintains persistent pressure on the couple (or partner) to move in this direction. In this way, the therapist pushes insecure partners through the synaptic cleft of unknowing to create a previously unexperienced knowing of secure function. The influence the PACT therapist can exert on partners may result in both neuroplastic and epigenetic first-order changes.

© 2003-2013 – Stan Tatkin – all rights reserved

On Being Found

A study by Nagasawa and his colleagues in Japan (2009) some years ago involving dogs and their owners found that if a dog looked into its owner’s eyes by finding the gaze first, the owner’s oxytocin levels went up. (I suspect dopamine might also be increased). However, if the owner’s gaze found the dog’s eyes first, no increase in oxytocin resulted. This finding has continued to “dog” me as I thought about infant attachment studies and adult romantic relationships. What is it about a dog, a baby, or a lover finding our eyes that leads to an increase in dopamine, oxytocin, vasopressin, or other neurochemicals related to the reward system?

During early infancy, when the newborn’s gaze is largely undirected, the catching of the mother’s gaze by the infant leads to a dopaminergic rush—a reward that is evident in the mother’s subsequent inviting vocal tone and facial expression. This excitement on her part amplifies the infant’s own interest in returning to the mother’s gaze, and thus the pattern repeats. We might imagine that if the mother chased the infant’s eyes (as in the case of the dog), the same neurochemical reaction would not occur for her. There does seem to be, in fact, a difference between finding and being found.

Find the Baby

A common maxim in the field of infant development is that, in the first year of life, the baby must lead. The baby’s mind has yet to be located; it is floating in some nether land, waiting to be discovered by an interested, attentive, and curious adult mind. The adult mind, or brain, must find the baby’s mind, and that can only be accomplished by allowing the baby to lead and the caregiver to follow. Donald Winnicott wrote about the mother’s intense primary maternal preoccupation with the newborn. She focuses attention on the nonverbal being, who can neither fend for itself nor express needs in an adult manner, and whose very life depends upon an interested other who can read its cues for comfort, food, and relief from pain. Indeed, the mother’s capacity for what Dan Siegel (2009) terms mindsight—her ability to read the infant’s needs and locate the baby’s mind—creates an external psychobiological womb-like experience for the defenseless, unhatched infant (Mahler, Bergman, & Pine, 1975).

Find Your Partner

Unlike the baby, your partner’s mind should be fully formed (we hope), and therefore not in need of being found in order to survive in the world. Nonetheless, it could be argued that both you and your partner need to be found to thrive in mind, body, and spirit if life together is to be worth much. Do you know how to find your partner? Have you been found?

The Eyes Have It

We are animals that function optimally by regulating our nervous systems (and emotions) interactively with others. The means of interactive (or mutual) regulation is primarily through touch, vision, and sound, in that order. Though touch has great power to down- and up-regulate another person, eye contact comes in a very close second. Indeed, when it comes to finding and being found, the eyes have it.

When we gaze at our partner (or baby or dog, for that matter), we are in real time. By gazing I don’t mean staring or looking through or looking inward; by gazing I mean being fully present in the eyes of our loved one. If we maintain presence—something our partner can see—we also become anchored in real time, in the present moment. If we look into our partner’s eyes, we can see him or her think, feel, and change before us.

Finding, Losing, and Finding Again

In case you think finding and being found is a one-time event, you’re dead wrong. The process of finding and being found is a series of losing the other and being lost. It’s an error-filled process of attunement and misattunement, of error making and error correction, of injury and repair. It’s not being found for good that is most important; rather, it is the continuous interest, as demonstrated by the other, in refinding you over and over again!

Our focused gaze and interest in finding our partner over and over again not only cultivate a feeling of love and excitement (dopamine), but also reintroduce us to the strangerness that is our partner—his or her uniqueness, unpredictability, and complexity. Our sense of self and other becomes refreshed, new, updated, and novel. When our partner gazes attentively, he or she can find us despite our attempts to hide or remain unknown and unfound. Couples who rely on interactive regulation, which is really close-up play, benefit from the moment-by-moment experience of finding and being found.

Of course, we must have an interest in finding our partner! Some partners are as disinterested in finding each other as were their parents in finding them as a baby. Some partners are overly interested in finding but not in being found, as happened in childhood with their caregivers. Always turning away toward the self as a masturbatory exercise in self-finding is as lonely as always turning toward another person in a perpetual search for the other who may one day find us. Finding and being found must be interactive, mutual, and effortful. Otherwise, just stick with the dog.

Mahler, M. S., Bergman, A., & Pine, F. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: symbiosis and individuation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Nagasawa, M., Kikusui, T., Onaka, T., & Ohta, M. (2009). Dog’s gaze at its owner increases owner’s urinary oxytocin during social interaction. Hormones and Behavior, 55, 3, 434–441.

Siegel, D. (2009). Mindsight: The new science of personal transformation. New York, NY: Bantam.

 © 2003-2013 Stan Tatkin, PsyD – all rights reserved

Interview on the Dr. Shirley and Steve Show

I’ve posted the interview from last week on the Dr. Shirley and Steve Show. It’s the third video down. Can’t miss it on the page. Hope you like it.

Arousal Regulation and Mindfulness for Couples

In PACT, we talk about various strategies for emotional and arousal regulation. Auto-regulation is a process of self-management that is internally focused, energy conserving (because it doesn’t involve interactions with people), and somewhat dissociative. It is a non-social strategy in the sense that it does not require another person. For instance, when I manage myself by self-stimulating and self-soothing; others are not required or even wanted. Some people find using mindfulness practices for auto-regulatory purposes to be a better strategy than constantly seeking to be left alone.

Self-regulation, on the other hand, is a pro-social strategy that focuses on self-management. In other words, I manage myself so I can better maintain social engagement with others.

Mindfulness practices can be used effectively for self-regulatory purposes. I suspect this is one of the reasons behind their recent popularity.

In fact, the term “mindfulness” carries various subtle shades of meaning, reflecting different schools of practice. For example, when I studied Morita and Naikan (two forms of Japanese psychotherapy) with David K. Reynolds (1989), mindfulness was emphasized differently in each. Morita required me to pay continuous attention to the outside world while accepting my thoughts and feelings as outside my conscious control. Because thoughts and feelings cannot be controlled by will alone (like the weather), the smart thing to do is to accept them “as is” and focus on one’s purpose. So I learned to be mindful and centered on purpose (not on feeling or thinking). The initial result of such a practice was intense existential angst, but eventually it disciplined me to appreciate details in the world around me while being less hung up on my internal world. Naikan required a continuous attention on what I received from people, what I gave to people, and the trouble I caused people. The initial result of that practice was strong feelings of guilt and remorse, but it also led to profound, pervasive feelings of gratitude. Naikan practice helped me see what I got from people and what I continually get from people despite my attitude, my greediness, my envy, and my self-centeredness.

When I learned vipassana (a form of Theravada Buddhist meditation), also known as insight meditation, from Shinzen (Stephen) Young, mindfulness meant continuous, moment-by-moment attention to body sensations, thoughts, emotions, impulses, and urges as they arose and soon faded. The two-part technology of vipassana (attention and equanimity) taught me to manage my internal world. Notice and allow. Notice and allow. I could learn to handle physical pain, as well as mental and emotional anguish, without suffering. Wow. Talk about self-regulation! Vipassana was (and is) a mind-blower.

Each of these—Morita, Naikan, and vipassana—is an example of mindfulness practice. Each is powerful and quite different from the others, yet each yields benefits for only as long as the practice is maintained. Stop the practice and the benefits stop, too.

These practices can be done either alone or with a partner. For instance, my wife and I can decide to practice vipassana or any other mindfulness practice together, in the same room at the same time. Nice.

We can also face each other and practice mindfulness meditation while in each other’s eyes (simultaneous attention to both inside and outside). Practicing in this way cultivates interactive regulation (sometimes referred to as co-regulation or mutual regulation). Because it involves use of the near senses (e.g., vision, voice, or touch), interactive regulation is like a dance between two nervous systems, two minds, two bodies. It is a social-emotional balancing act that requires attention, presence, and equanimity. Each of the following suggestions emphasizes mindfulness and equanimity as a two-person, interactive regulatory practice.

Using Morita, mindful attention is placed onto the outside world. That includes your partner! We pay attention to each other’s eyes, facial expressions, body movements, implicit signals and bids for attention. We accept feelings and thoughts, both positive and negative, “as is,” without judgment or complaint. Instead, we focus on purpose, such as providing each other relief, anticipating each other’s needs and wants, and attending to what needs to be done rather than on what we feel or think. For example, my wife and I can decide to have an entire evening of nonverbal interactions—on purpose, of course. We can make and eat dinner, relying solely on nonverbal communication. We have to anticipate each other’s moves; interpret each other’s signals (e.g., “pass the salt”); and work together cooperatively.

This practice of noble silence can continue through the evening and into bedtime, as well as during our transition to sleep. An adventurous couple could try this for an entire day or maybe even a weekend. If you’re in a couple, see what it’s like. Pretend you can’t talk and can only use nonverbals.

Another Morita mindfulness exercise could involve giving one another a massage. The massage should be like a mindfulness meditation in which the giver pays moment-to-moment, purposeful attention to the act, while accepting all thoughts and feelings “as is.” The Morita reason for giving a massage is that it needs to be done with full attention! The good thing about massage, like eye contact, is that the receiving partner can always tell if the giving partner’s mind is drifting.

In Wired for Love, I suggest that couples do bedtime rituals. One such ritual is to do a loving kindness meditation. Variations of loving kindness practices include those stemming from vipassana. Naikan also has a loving kindness practice that can be done at any time of day. For instance, make a list of people who gave you things today, whether or not you wanted the gift, whether or not they intended to give it to you, or whether their attitude was good or bad. Take a piece of paper and draw three columns, with the first entitled “What he/she gave to me today.” Both partners should spend considerable time on this particular column before moving on to the next column, which is entitled “What I gave him/her/them today.” The third column should be entitled “The trouble I caused him/her today.” This last column should also receive proper attention to detail. Reading this list aloud to one another can become a Naikan loving kindness practice.

Alternatively, a couple can give their best wishes to those people past and present, living and dead, as the partners drift off to sleep at night. This mindfulness practice of attending to others in a loving way can provide an internal social connection for those who feel alone, lonely, abandoned, or isolated.

Whether doing vipassana, Naikan, Morita, or any other self-enhancing mindfulness practice, the purpose should be to increase one’s presence. It should not be a means to avoid, space out, trip out, self-soothe or self-stimulate. We are social creatures and mindfulness should be a means toward becoming more connected to ourselves and others.

Reynolds, D. K. (1989). Flowing bridges, quiet waters: Japanese psychotherapies, Morita and Naikan. Albany: State University of New York Press.

© 2003-2013 Stan Tatkin, PsyD – all rights reserved

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,700 other followers