The Lost Soldiers

Hola Everybody,
I have a splitting headache and I never get headaches -- never. I’m going to find a dark, quiet place and just lay my head down....

Lost

Former Japanese soldier, Hiroo Onoda (r), offering his sword  as an expression his surrender 30 years after WW II was over.

I read somewhere once that getting lost is the best way to find yourself.
 -- Joanne Clancy

During the height of the Japanese occupation of the Pacific during WW II, there were tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers scattered over literally thousands of tiny islands. As the tide of war shifted, many of these island strongholds were defeated or overrun, but some were entirely missed. On some islands, small groups of soldiers or isolated survivors hid in caves in dense inaccessible jungle areas.

Eventually, the war would come to an end. But since these survivors had no way of knowing, they continued living as if the war was still being fought, maintaining military protocol, totally isolated, yearning for the day when they would be reunited with their command.

In the years immediately following the war, many of these soldiers were found by natives, or discovered when they shot at fishing boats. As the years passed, these discoveries became less frequent, the last having been found thirty years after the war had ended.

Try to put yourself in such a soldier’s position. His government had called on him to protect his country from an external threat, trained him, and sent him to a jungle island. And as a loyal citizen he served answered this call and survived many battles through the hard years of war. When the war ended, he kept honoring this call, fighting a war that he didn’t know had ended, surviving against great odds. Despite the heat, the disease, the insects, and the rains, he carried on, still loyal to the orders given to him by his government.

It would be easy to laugh at such a soldier and consider him stupid for continuing to fight a war that had been over for years. The question became, how should such a soldier be treated?

Whenever one of these soldiers was located, the first contact was always made by someone who had been a high-ranking officer. He would dust off his old uniform and samurai sword and take a military boat to the area where the soldier had been sighted.

The officer would walk through the jungle, calling out for the soldier until he was located. When the soldier was found, the officer would thank the soldier, with tears in his eyes, for his loyalty and for continuing to defend his country. Only after some time would the soldier gently be told the war was over and that his country was again at peace, so he would not have to fight anymore.

When he reached home, he would be given a hero’s welcome, with parades and medals, and crowds thanking him and celebrating his sacrifices.

Many of us would view these lost soldiers as weird and even crazy, fighting a war that had long been over. Yet who can deny their intention was noble -- to protect and serve their country? Although they were doing the best they could with what they knew and, however useful their behavior may have once been, the war was over and their actions no longer served a purpose.

Laugh you might, but there are times we all are like those lost soldiers. We all have feelings or behaviors that once may have served a useful purpose when we were younger, and we continue even when they are no longer useful to us.

Some of us find ourselves still fighting battles with their parents long after they have died. We may find ourselves reacting in the workplace with behaviors developed to deal with an older brother, or the school bully. People who have been hurt sometimes learn to mistrust others so well that they have great difficulty trusting others who love them deeply. Some of us have been hurt so deeply that even saying the words, “I love you,” is a near impossibility.

All of us do things we sometimes consider stupid or limiting -- things that get in our way. Sometimes we feel inadequate and angry when we think that’s a dumb thing to feel. How many of us also occasionally see our friends and relatives doing stupid, harmful, even weird things? I think we tend to see it better in others than in ourselves. They should know better, some of us sneer.

We are the lost soldiers. Welcome to a war that has been over for a long time, my friends.

What often happens is that we usually respond to these behaviors by trying to get rid of them, criticizing ourselves mercilessly in the process:

“You ought to be able to stop smoking!”

“You should be able to lose weight!”

“You’re so stupid for not feeling more self-confident.”

“I get so pissed at getting these migraines!” 

All we know is that these responses often act as obstacles and serve no useful purpose except to get in our way.

However, like the lost soldiers, all our behaviors at one time served a useful purpose. Cognitive linguists talk about “frames,” the mental structures we build in order to make sense of reality. These frames are very important to us and sometimes they’re not even based on evidence but values. I can talk till I’m blue in the face, showing you that what you view as a table really isn’t a table, but if you developed a certain “frame” for a table, you will dismiss the evidence and keep the “frame.”

For me, the key to effective change is to use reframing techniques. Maybe we can think of a frame as part of a map. We create maps early in our lives so that we can navigate the territory. But what happens when the territory has changed and our maps have lost their relevance? What happens mostly is that people keep the maps and mistake the map for the territory.

I see this tendency in myself and others all the time.

The most important part of this reframing method is making the following assumption: that every behavior or feeling you have, no matter how bizarre or stupid it seems, has some useful and important, positive function or intention. It may seem ridiculous but it is a powerful assumption that makes inner healing possible. It helps us turn problems and limitations into assets and allies. I think the important part of the lost soldiers’ story is that they were treated gently with compassion. In the same way, we need to bring the same gentleness and compassion to the lost soldiers of our souls.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

The Friday Sex Blog [Adult Games]

¡Hola mi Gente!

It’s Friday and it’s all about sex (or something close to it). Have a great weekend!

* * *

Games People Play

The one absolute in the study of human behavior is that people do things because they get something out of it. People's actions, however seemingly ridiculous, serve a purpose.

I once had a therapist tell me I had to learn how to parent myself. It may not sound particularly earth-shattering, but I had never even entertained that idea -- I never thought that could be possible. It was a liberating moment that also held some fear for me.

Modern research shows that the notion of being separate and apart is a myth. In fact, it's a very destructive myth, just take a look at what we're doing to our ecology and you quickly realize that the “me” attitude has dire consequences.

Along with the potential of being destructive the perception of ourselves as separate and apart from the rest of creation blinds us to the biological fact that we are all intimately connected, leaving many of us feeling isolated. Our neurology is a feedback loop. How infants interact with their mothers, for example, has a direct impact on the development of the brain. Infants need physical handling as much or more than food and those who are deprived fall into irreversible mental and physical decline.

Adults also need as much physical contact as children. In adulthood, sensory deprivation can lead to temporary psychosis, for example. But because close physical contact is not always available, we seek emotional fulfillment in other ways. A Facebook contact, for example, may seek emotional “strokes” from his or her friends list in the form of adoration or positive feedback. In the same way, a movie star may get her strokes from fan mail. A scientist may get hers from a positive commendation from a leading figure in the field.

In transactional analysis, the “stroke” is seen as the basic unit of social action. An exchange of strokes is a transaction and hence the phrase, “transactional analysis” describing the dynamics of social interaction. Bear with me here, there's a point to all this and one I feel you will find interesting.

For argument's sake, let's take this as a given -- that we have this psycho-biological need to receive strokes or intimate fulfillment. From this perspective, people consider any social participation -- even if negative -- as better than none at all. This primal need for intimacy is also why people engage in games as a substitute for genuine connection.

In short we play a game, defined as a series of transactions, to satisfy this inner hunger for intimacy, and it always involves a payoff. Still with me?

Let me take this a step further. As much as they will deny it, most people aren't even aware they are playing a game. For most, it's a normal way of interaction. “People games” are like playing poker in the sense that the better we can hide our inner motivation (essentially that we're all needy motherfuckers at heart), the more likely we “win.” In a professional context the payoff could be a raise or a promotion; people speak of the “real estate game,” or “playing the market.” In the relationship world the payoff is usually some emotional gratification or an increase in control.

I once worked with a participant, a former contract killer (a “soldier”), who once compared himself to a newborn infant in the following way:

You ever see when they first bring babies home from the hospital? How sometimes they have to put mittens on babies because otherwise they will scratch themselves? Well, that's how I feel sometimes. Like I can't help but hurt myself and I need psychological mittens to save me from myself.

Rewind back to the time with my former therapist and you can begin to see a model emerging. We all have within us different states or selves:

• The attitudes and thinking of a parental figure (Parent)
• An adult-like ability to rationalize and accept truth (Adult)
• The attitudes and views of a child (Child)

In any given situation, we can emphasize any one of these inner selves, and sometimes shift from one to another quite easily. For example, we can take on a child's wonderment, creativity, and curiosity, but also a child's tantrums and incapacity to empathize. The point being that within each situation we can adopt a role that can be productive or unproductive.

In playing a game, instead of maintaining intimacy to get what we want, we succumb to the temptation to act like a coquettish child, or take on the wise, rational aura of an adult.

Let the games begin! LOL

There are basic games people play. They may vary a little, but they're basically variations on the same theme:

The most common game between people in a relationship is the one in which one complains that the other is an obstacle to doing what they really want in life. For example, a person who may not be aware of her fear of real intimacy may choose to be with emotionally unavailable men and then complain of a lack of intimacy. The game then becomes, “If it weren't for you... ”

I believe people unconsciously choose partners because they seek to be limited. I do a lot of work around complaints. My experience has shown me that if you follow the breadcrumbs of your complaints, you will come face-to-face with your own bullshit. Playing the “if it weren't for you” game gives us the excuse of abdicating responsibility for our own lives, or looking honestly and compassionately at our own fears or character defects.

Another common relationship game is when, in response to a solution-centered suggestion, the partner responds by saying, “Yes, but... ” and then proceeds to find everything that could go wrong with the solution. In Child mode, this allows the person to gain sympathy from others for being inadequate to the challenge. In Adult mode, we would be more willing to examine and maybe even take on the challenge the solution presents us.

These games are like worn out loops of the same tape -- being played over and over. It's amazing how transparent the games appear on social media spots like Facebook or Twitter, with all the trespassing of boundaries, the naked grabs for attention, the openly desperate manipulation for sex. And the one common trait is that all involved deny playing the game.

These are the scripts we inherit from our childhood and though they are limiting and self-destructive, they are also a form of psychological comfort food -- a way for us to absolve ourselves from looking at our own issues.

For many people, games have become so integral to their way of being that they feel the need to create drama, or manipulate those they come into contact with because they fear they won't be as interesting. The more games they play, the more they expect others to play them too; a habitual game player will end up with a psychologically unhealthy tendency to read too much of their own motivations and biases in others.

My Name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization, motherfuckers… LOL!

The Friday Sex Blog [Games]

¡Hola! Everybody…
Please leave Weiner’s dick alone. He’s not sick, nor is there any evidence that he committed any crime. The worst you can accuse himn of is using poor judgment for about a week (as he went around denying his masturbatory fantasies). Resign, you say? Why should he? Clinton didn’t, Craig didn’t, Vitter didn’t, and up until recently (when he realized he would be kicked out of the Senate) Ensign wasn’t thinking about resigning. Weiner shouldn’t.

Are you one of the dolts asking, “Why would he do this after he was married?” Lemme see... maybe because members of congress (like members of the human race) get horny sometimes? And sometimes male members of congress, like many members of the male (and female) sex, think with their genitals? And sometimes men -- even married men -- jerk off on internet porn? Weiner was horny and went online and flirted and spanked the monkey a few times. He created his own porn, his own interactive porn, like millions of other Americans have done, and continue to do, every fuckin’ day. And the Internet provided Wiener with the same thing it provides for tens of millions of other men (and women) in monogamous relationships: needed release and safe variety.

And yeah, bitchez, if you’re married, your man has a secret stash of porn hidden somewhere in the house, and he’s jerked off on an image of someone other than you. And it’s quite probable that he’s fucked you at least once while fantasizing about another woman. And any man that denies it is either a liar, or a sexually motivated serial killer.

* * *

-=[ The Games People Play ]=-

The one absolute in the study of human behavior is that people do things because they get something out of it. People's actions, however seemingly ridiculous, serve a purpose.

During a session, I once had a therapist tell me I had to learn how to parent myself. This may not sound particularly earth-shattering, but I had never even entertained that idea -- I never thought that could be possible. It was a liberating moment that also held some fear for me.

Modern research shows that the childish notion of being separate and apart is a myth. In fact, it’s a very destructive myth, just take a look at what we’re doing to our ecology and you quickly realize that this particularly American brand of “rugged individualism” (the “me” attitude) has dire consequences.

Along with the potential of being thoroughly destructive, we are all intimately connected -- though many of us feel isolated. Our neurology is a feedback loop. How infants interact with their mothers, for example, has a direct impact on the structural development of the brain. Infants need physical handling as much or more than food and those who are deprived fall into irreversible mental and physical decline.

Adults also need as much physical contact as children. Sensory deprivation for example, can lead to temporary psychosis in adults. But because close physical contact is not always available, we seek emotional fulfillment in other ways. Someone exploring the internet, for example, may seek emotional “strokes” from his or her friends’ list in the form of adoration or positive feedback. In the same way, a movie star may get his strokes from fan mail. A scientist may get hers from a positive commendation from a leading figure in the field.

In transactional analysis, this “stroke” is seen as the basic unit of social action. An exchange of strokes is a transaction and hence the phrase, “transactional analysis” describing the dynamics of social interaction.

Bear with me here, there’s a point to all this and one I feel you will find interesting.

For argument’s sake, let’s take this as a given -- that we have this psycho-biological need to receive strokes or intimate fulfillment. In this context, people consider any social participation -- even negative ones -- as better than none at all. This primal need for intimacy is also why people engage in games as a substitute for genuine connection.

In short, we play a game, defined as a series of transactions, to satisfy this inner hunger for intimacy, and it always involves a payoff.

Still with me?

Let me take this a step further. Most people will deny playing games because most of this happens beyond or outside their awareness. For them, it’s a normal way of interaction. Games are like playing poker in the sense that the better we can hide our inner motivation (essentially that we crave intimacy), the more likely we “win.” In a professional context the payoff could come in the form of a raise in income or a promotion; people speak of the “real estate game,” or “playing” the stock market. In the relationship world the payoff is usually some emotional gratification or an increase in control.

I had a participant, a former contract killer (a “soldier”), who once compared himself to a newborn infant in the following way:

“You ever see when they first bring babies home from the hospital? How sometimes they have to put mitts on babies because otherwise they will scratch themselves? Well, that’s how I feel sometimes. Like I can’t help but hurt myself or others and I need psychological mittens to save me from myself.”

Rewind back to the time with my former therapist and you can begin to see a model emerging. We all have within us different states or selves:

The attitudes and thinking of a parental figure (Parent)

An adult-like ability to rationalize and accept truth (Adult)

The attitudes and views of a child (Child)

In any given situation, we can emphasize any one of these inner selves, and sometimes shift from one to another quite easily. For example, we can take on a child’s sense of wonder, creativity, and curiosity, but also a child’s tantrums and inability to empathize. The point being that within each mode we can be productive or unproductive, effective or ineffective.

In playing a game, instead of maintaining intimacy to get what we want, we succumb to the temptation to act childishly coquettish, or take on the wise, rational aura of an adult.

Let the games begin!

Here are a few basic games people play. They may vary a little, but they’re basically variations on the same theme:

The most common game between people in a relationship is the one in which one complains that the other is an obstacle to doing what they really want in life. For example, a person who may not be aware of her fear of real intimacy may choose emotionally unavailable men and then complain of a lack of intimacy. The game then becomes, “If it weren’t for you, I would... ”

I believe people unconsciously choose partners because they want to be limited. I see this in much of the work I do around complaints. My experience has shown me that if you follow the breadcrumbs of your complaints, you will come face-to-face with your own bullshit. Playing the “If it weren’t for you, I would… ” game gives us the excuse for abdicating responsibility for our own lives, or looking at our fears.

Another common relationship game is when, in response to a solution-centered suggestion, the partner says “Yes, but... ” and then proceeds to find everything that could go wrong with the solution. In Child mode, this allows the person to gain sympathy from others for being inadequate to the challenge. In Adult mode, we would be more willing to explore and maybe even be open to the possibility or potential of the solution.

These games are like worn out loops of the same tape -- being played repeatedly throughout our relationships. It’s amazing how transparent the games appear on social networking sites, with all the trespassing of boundaries, the naked grab for attention, the openly desperate manipulation for sex. And the one common trait is that all involved deny playing the game! LOL!! Go look and you’ll find a long comment thread populated by game players, passing judgment on someone who’s been caught playing a game.

But these games are in actuality the scripts we inherit from our childhood and though they are limiting and self-destructive, they are also a form of psychological comfort food -- a way for us to absolve ourselves from looking at our own issues.

For many people, games have become so integral to their way of being that they feel compelled to create drama, or manipulate those they come into contact with, because they fear they won’t be as interesting otherwise. The more games they play, the more they expect others to play them too. A habitual game player will end up with a dysfunctional (even pathological) tendency to project or read too much of their own motivations and biases in others.

Love,

Eddie

Adult Games

Games People Play

The one absolute in the study of human behavior is that people do things because they get something out of it. People's actions, however seemingly ridiculous, serve a purpose.

I once had a therapist tell me I had to learn how to parent myself. It may not sound particularly earth-shattering, but I had never even entertained that idea -- I never thought that could be possible. It was a liberating moment that also held some fear for me.

Modern research shows that the childish notion of being separate and apart is a myth. In fact, it's a very destructive myth, just take a look at what we're doing to our ecology and you quickly realize that the "me" attitude has dire consequences.

Along with the potential of being totally destructive, we are all intimately connected -- though many of us feel isolated. Our neurology is a feedback loop. How infants interact with their mothers, for example, has a direct impact on the development of the brain. Infants need physical handling as much or more than food and those who are deprived fall into irreversible mental and physical decline.

Adults also need as much physical contact as children. In adulthood, sensory deprivation can lead to temporary psychosis. But because close physical contact is not always available, we seek emotional fulfillment in other ways. A 360 participant, for example, may seek emotional "strokes" from his or her friends list in the form of adoration or positive feedback. In the same way, a movie star may get his strokes from fan mail. A scientist may get hers from a positive commendation from a leading figure in the field.

In transactional analysis, the "stroke" is seen as the basic unit of social action. an exchange of strokes is a transaction and hence the phrase, "transactional analysis" describing the dynamics of social interaction.

Bear with me here, there's a point to all this and one I feel you will find interesting.

For argument's sake, let's take this as a given -- that we have this psycho-biological need to receive strokes or intimate fulfillment. In this context, people consider any social participation -- even if negative -- as better than none at all. This primal need for intimacy is also why people engage in games as a substitute for genuine connection.

In short we play a game, defined as a series of transactions, to satisfy this inner hunger for intimacy, and it always involves a payoff.

Still with me?

Let me take this a step further. As much as they will deny it, most people aren't even aware they are playing a game. For them, it's a normal way of interaction. People games are like playing poker in the sense that the better we can hide our inner motivation (essentially that we're needy ma'fuccas), the more likely we "win." In the professional environment the payoff could be a raise or a promotion; people speak of the "real estate game," or playing the stock market. In the relationship world the payoff is usually some emotional gratification or an increase in control.

I had a participant, a former contract killer (a "soldier"), who once compared himself to a newborn infant in the following way:

"You ever see when the first bring babies home from the hospital? How sometimes you have to put mitts on babies because otherwise they will scratch themselves? Well, that's how I feel sometimes. Like I can't help but hurt myself and I need psychological mittens to save me."

Rewind back to the time with my former therapist and you can begin to see a model emerging. We all have within us different states or selves:

• The attitudes and thinking of a parental figure (Parent)
• An adult-like ability to rationalize and accept truth (Adult)
• The attitudes and views of a child (Child)

In any given situation, we can emphasize any one of these inner selves, and sometimes shift from one to another quite easily. For example, we can take on a child's wonderment, creativity, and curiosity, but also a child's tantrums and inability to empathize. The point being that within each mode we can be productive or unproductive.

In playing a game, instead of maintaining intimacy to get what we want, we succumb to the temptation to act like a coquettish child, or take on the wise, rational aura of an adult.

Let the games begin! LOL

There are basic games people play. They may vary a little, but they're basically variations on the same theme:

The most common game between people in a relationship is the one in which one complains that the other is an obstacle to doing what they really want in life. For example, a person who may not be aware of her fear of real intimacy may choose emotionally unavailable men and then complain of a lack of intimacy. The game then becomes, "If it weren't for you... "

I believe people unconsciously choose partners because they want to be limited. I do a lot of work around complaints. My experience has shown me that if you follow the breadcrumbs of your complaints, you will come face-to-face with your own bullshit. Playing the "if it weren't for you" game gives us the excuse of abdicating responsibility for our own lives, or looking at our fears.

Another common relationship game is when, in response to a solution-centered suggestion, the partner says "Yes, but... " and then proceeds to find everything that could go wrong with the solution. In Child mode, this allows the person to gain sympathy from others for being inadequate to the challenge. In Adult mode, we would be more willing to examine and maybe even take on the possibility of the solution.

These games are like worn out loops of the same tape -- being played over and over. It's amazing how transparent the games appear here on 360, with all the trespassing of boundaries, the naked grab for attention, the openly desperate manipulation for sex. And the one common trait is that all involved deny playing the game! LOL!!

These are the scripts we inherit from our childhood and though they are limiting and self-destructive, they are also a form of psychological comfort food -- a way for us to absolve ourselves from looking at our own issues.

For many people, games have become so integral to their way of being that they feel the need to create drama, or manipulate those they come into contact with, because they fear they won't be as interesting. The more games they play, the more they expect others to play them too; a habitual game player will end up with a psychotic tendency to read too much of their own motivations and biases in others.

It's not, as people like to say just Yahoo, it's you!

Love,

Eddie