WHAT IS "PROPER" PSYCHOTHERAPY ?

[docjp]

When someone seeks professional help, the "problem" is usually long-standing, and the persons MIND has habituated the behavioral "venting" of the repressed energies in certain ways for a long time.  The training curriculum of modern mental health professionals is some form of intellectualism, or a continuation of the denial of two-thirds of Man of "behaviorism" by focusing on an intellectual and thinking means of dealing with a "psychological" [which means existing at Esoteric levels that ones brain cannot perceive] conflict.

Every mental health "conflict" is one taking place within a persons MIND http://about-psychology.com/MIND.html [and of course the MIND is not ones physical brain].  And when professionals are taught to deny the MIND, and to pretend it is the same as the brain, the chances a person seeking help is likely to find it, is poor to not likely.

So, "proper" mental health would be that which helps a person discover what the "conflict" is within his or her MIND realm.  And the only way to do this is for one to withdraw ones own attention [http://about-psychology.com/apapsyche.html], or Apapsyche, from ones brain and to fix it in ones MIND realm, where the properly trained psychotherapist will be able to do the same, and this will allow the psychotherapist to use Empathetic Understanding to identify what needs to be addressed.  That is, the conflict will cause a resonance within the MIND of the therapist, and by becoming aware of this within his own MIND, the therapist will be able to direct the client/patient via carefully directed questioning [using the Gestalt process] to the discovery and elimination of the conflict.

Alas this level of training ceased many decades ago, and today precious few mental health professionals are properly trained. That is, few have cleared the deeply repressed traumata from their own MIND realms, and thus made themselves capable of providing the level of Acceptance necessary to conduct competent psychotherapy.

[voodoo scientist]

Psychology is the study of the mind. Neuroscience is the study of the brain. There is a very, very, very clear distinction that noone who deals with psychology or neuroscience is at all unclear about. What you seem to want is gestalt (which is not really a treatment form so much as an explanation) and psychoanalysis, which has been debunked as useless for everything but anxiety disorders, where it still sees some use among old-fashioned psychotherapists. Empathy is an explicit and major component in many CBT treatments and is generally considered a helpful thing in all medical science.

Have you actually read a psychology book or even met a psychologist, ever, or do you just watch too much TV?

[docjp]

Psychology is the study of the mind. Neuroscience is the study of the brain. There is a very, very, very clear distinction that noone who deals with psychology or neuroscience is at all unclear about.

The problem is... it is rare that someone trained in the oxymoron "behavioral psychology" is capable of comprehending the concept of an Esoteric [non-physical MIND].  Since the concept must be experienced since it cannot be known via the Left-Hemisphere of ones brain and thinking.  What you refer to as "empathy" is a wonderful thing... but quite impossible to experience via ones brain and thinking.

As for the term psychoanalysis, it, like all such "terms", it only refers to a process that one may or may not be capable of doing? Freud was capable of using Empathetic Understanding to a degree, and this allowed him to perceive something of the Esoteric operations within Man.  His intuition was spot on, but his thinking "about" what he intuited was often flawed.

Gestalt is the "abstract name" of an experiential process, and almost everyone can do the  physical part of Gestalt, but  what one can observe of the process is not the Gestalt that Fritz Perls spoke of.  What Fritz Perls spoke of was the Esoteric process of Empathetic Understanding using ones intuition for direct MIND level communication with the MIND of another.

It is the lack of intuition that causes people to "think" they know things they do not.  It is their MINDs that cause them to think this, via its http://about-psychology.com/DM-SI.html

[voodoo scientist]

None of what you just said makes any sense within the context of psychology. You appear to be having trouble with concepts ranging as far as psychology, neuroscience, neuroanatomy, the practice of psychology, the mind, the word 'esoteric' as well as gestalt psychology. What you say is not wrong so much as a generous, nonsensical application of big words you don't fully seem to understand.

[Bill Hemphill]

Voodoo, docjp is expressing that he see's that there is a function of the psyche and that anothers' mind can be dealt with and understood and he is expressing to you HOW he is DOING it just as I have also been telling you the way I see into a persons mind and how to use the psychic functions, or functions of the mind, to help them.

[Enigma]

You and doc both don't seem to understand that you're treading on established terminology.  Those of us who's educational credentials include more then reading wikipedia or about.com articles will interpret the meaning of your language in proper scientific terminology.  You seem to forget that we can't jump inside your head and automatically know your subjective meaning of a word.  If you want thoughtful, meaningful responses to your posts, then define your operational terminology better.

[Bill Hemphill]

Enigma,This is a psychology forum. Truth is the answer to the problems in Psychology. You have to correct the wrong theories if you are to heal someone.

You can't find it productive to repeat the mistaken theories of the past?

[Enigma]

You should most definitely attempt to refute current psychological thought.  That's what science is all about.  But if you want to be taken seriously then provide sources and clearly explain your thoughts in your own language.  If you are going to borrow a word from psychology then clearly explain what the word means in your context.  Having clear and concise operational definitions is a hallmark of good scientific writing.

[Bill Hemphill]

I see that as a response that I will note. Maybe in the future, instead of saying I am wrong, you could ask me for my more elaborate explanation of my use of a particular word. You then could point out how that disagrees with present or your understanding.