TERRITORY THERAPY
TERRITORY THERAPY 020801 01:11 The fundamental basis of psychotherapy of any sort,is protection of territory; the client needs territory clarification, after trauma or absence of territory building throughout past living experience and in everyday life.
060801 22:12 As in most theorizing, territoriality as a concept is a matter of emphasis, --- what I call vector, i e, where one starts and in what direction one is going.
22:34 Territory is also a matter of confession.
070801 09:22 I emphasize the urge to territory as basic vector in life itself, and adapt the notion to fit the concept. Accordingly, various basic urges arecombined in a vector functioning (in my opinion) as primal force in life. There is no reason to denigrate this urge, or attempt to supposedly see urges as sublimations of something so primitive---primitive is not bad per se.
Thus, our love for our children is part of territory, i e, the territory of time and past/future; the operative point here is the primality of the urge: when judges interfere by law vs the prerogatives of any genetic parent, they are going against forces far more basic than imagined by the quacks who (posing as scientific psychologists) instruct them to make peace in the family by following what is foolishly conceived of as “the good of the child” --- by opposing the basic urge, society not only stigmatizes the sacrificed parent, it deprives the child of a society fit to be lived in by the child and the later offspring of the child and /or any child. “The good of the child” is a vicious nostrum, as much a menace as the old “for your own good” slogan which allowed cruelty in the name of upbringing.
By seeing the responsibility of each genetic parent not only to self, and not only to child, but also to ancesters, in a continuous chain since the dawn of time, and into the distant future, under the aegis of the urge to territory, as a primal urge, thwarted only with great peril, we can guide society toward congenial mutual respect in relations between the sexes as well as within each gender.
140801 04:38 In dealing with people, we are often in the situation of one wandering in the dark night in unfamiliar countryside, having to avoid treading into meadows owned by raging bulls. We might be lucky with the bull at a great distance, but it might be right up close and real dangerous. It is not necessary to question what is in the mind of the bull; what is necessary is to respect its territory. We must accept this prime fact of human psychology.
06:19 We can play as children in relationship if and when we are not threatened as to territory.
150801 17:52 Territory and the sense of majesty ---note re child/ parent rights.
17:54 The olde generation of Norwegian professionals, especially lawyers, discourage creativity in the young professionals/students, this so as to protect territory (territort-ism)(heh heh). The failure to teach more psychologists is so motivated by the older, so as to protect their status including moneywise.
150801 20:22 Of course, paradoxically (paradox is ALWAYS sine qua non (without that, nothing)), at all ages, one must respect the territorial rights of others. But this assumes mutuality; so we are always enaged in teaching self and others (jargon: the self/other relationship) territoriality. Of course, as all is paradoxical in basic relationship, there is also the occasion when the particular paradox is not operative (so, sine quo non is itself paradoxical), and this requires virtuoso territorial grooming. cf my section “sinbiosis” for more on paradox generally.
20:30 Anyway, the child/parent relationship assumes constant territoriality grooming, and the training in all this, and growing and learning by adults as well as children--- I indeed have never met an adult (we are all children) --- people insisting on claiming adulthood are actually merely defending themselves in insecure fear and/or anxiety as to territory (when we are happy in relationship we are as happy and growing children, projecting onto each other the secure relationship we feel generally (this is part of the motivation to a protective “God”))---people want to play at being adult, but sometimes this gets out of control and we become villains, whether crooks or honest bankers, and in extreme cases resemble mafiosi, with perverse emphasis on “respect”; and then there is the reaction, i e, authoritarianism to deny normal assertiveness of the individual. So parents must start early, with the little daily dose of territoriality grooming; parents learn by feeling their way in relationship with the baby and child growing at various phases; True respect for the baby includes responding to natural assertiveness and showing the same to the small and growing person. But of course all this is quite beyond the capacity of Brits.
290801 0812 Of course I have to mention the book (which I have not redd)(my new spelling)(my territory) “The Territorial Imperative” by Robert (?) Ardrey (sp?), from the early sixties (?).
fredag 19. oktober 2001 16:19 Currently Congress is considering Usurper´s school plan, and I have seen a brief presentation, and it seems to be alright, except for the usual vexed problem of separation of church and state: government funds are to be used for “after-school centers” . I suppose everyone knows what they are, or thinks so. But in practice, with government (Federal) funds involved, it is not so simple. The point is that non-governmental groups could provide the “after school centers” , including religious groups. So, imagine extreme situations, like small town with catholic nuns running center. Use your imagination. And, looking at the problem philosophically, I see a territory conflict: at what age is one adult? Of course, we are talking about after school centers for people considered to be children, whether age 8 or age 18 --- accordingly it is a matter of territory in the view of the parents, and people thinking of themselves as defending the prerogatives of parents. The entire matter of religion in schools is defined (in my own understanding) by territory: the age old tug of war between family and other institutions --- family v v church , and family v v state (law and the money of the state). According to my own theory, even as animals in the wild defend territory in the general sense of land, so do humans defend not only land, but also territory in time, by controlling posterity (and animals also defend land as part of defending posterity --- protecting their own offspring vs that of others). People are aware that we all eventually die even of natural causes; therefore we live thru our progeny, and our progeny carries forth our own personal culture, v v that of others. So it is not necessary for humans in societies to actually kill others, since we can promote our own cultural agendas thru the gates of generational transition naturally unavoidable, since everyone eventually dies anyway, and accordingly leaves the future unavoidably in the hands of offspring. So, while we respect in USA the liberty of an adult to choose as to religion (cf The Virginia Compact for best explanation preparing for The Bill of Rights) , we demand our parental prerogative to control what goes into the hearts and minds of our own children. This is distinct from the general questions around what is for the best for the child, seen from the viewpoint of society generally. (and is why “God” must not be bannered or sung in public schools for children; children must be protected from sectarianism) Jefferson said his reason for involving himself in such matters, was his having seen first hand the horrors of sectarian violence: in other words, we do not have to like what another person construes as religious truth, but the alternative to accepting it, is too bad to tolerate, and such wisdom is part of our social contract as citizens of USA with the contracted norms of our Constitution, even when we do not worship it as some unalterable religious dogma. But this a matter for free adults --- not to brainwash kids. In all exercise of law, the guiding rule is REASONABLENESS. We have to be circumspect in an objective sense if we are to be patriots --- waving a flag is not enough. Indeed, the flag is often used to cover bestial exploitation of jingoism for the purpose of self-indulgent mindless subversion of the social contract. It is to be remembered that many citizens of USA do not have as their prime allegiance the nation itself --- if “God” is the most important thing in the world, USA stands a second best, and is seen merely as a vehicle to arrive at theocracy de facto, even when not in law. We are faced now with the Usurper´s school proposal, with a tempting way to help kids who are in danger of seduction by evil forces in the cruel solitary alleys of our chaotic country. But history gives examples of fascism based on an impatient or hysteric rush to so-called law and order. And special interests in the religion realm are only too glad to let the error be made to the advantage of sectarianism. So we cannot take the easy cheap way out in this. We would be selling our national birth-right, or trading pieces of silver for the national patriotic values that keep us from the hell on earth we see in places like Afghanistan, where priests rule. After school centers can be run and manned by dedicated people who are patriotic enough to teach our American values, instead of those of theocracy, even when it is creeping theocracy posing as saintliness. søndag 21. oktober 2001 17:50
torsdag 25. oktober 2001 19:41 I sent that letter to CNN by fax, but tried and failed with evidently old numbers for Senator Kerry (Mass.) and for the Boston Globe newspaper. I have misplaced my fax number for Sen Kennedy. I do not have fax numbers for my representative (Edw Markey)(Mass.), or Sen Clinton. Mentioning this to help you understand daily life. I of course hesitate to send snail mail these anthraxian days, and prefer to celebrate the body digital. Maybe I´ll try to get some service from local consulate. lørdag 27. oktober 2001 20:04 cf entry this date in my page “Other People”. My new concepts.
for territory therapy lørdag 12. januar 2002 18:09 See also comments in my section called Other People, for thoughts related to this section.