David Oaks says: SPEAK UP! FIGHT INJUSTICE!

Article contributed by Altmentalities

Damn, I’m inspired.

David Oaks, co-founder and former executive director of MindFreedom International, is a leader and a visionary. After experiencing forced drugging and solitary confinement in the mental health system as a young man, he’s devoted his life to fighting against stigmatizing psychiatric labels, forced drugging, and human rights abuses. He led the 2003 MindFreedom Hunger Strike/Fast For Freedom where 6 psychiatric survivors fasted for weeks, challenging the American Psychiatric Association to provide solid evidence for the biological basis of mental/emotional distress. Despite an unbelievably COLD initial response from the APA, the strikers did not give up, and the APA was ultimately forced to admit that it had no scientific evidence that mental distress was a “neurobiological illness.”

He’s spearheaded numerous MindFreedom Shield campaigns to stop the forced drugging/electroshock of human beings who had NOT given their consent. This includes an extremely public campaign on behalf of Ray Sanford, which significantly increased public awareness of the unfortunately very real phenomenon of forced electroshock.

David Oaks: Psychiatric survivor, activist, and HUMAN BEING!

David Oaks: Psychiatric survivor, activist, and HUMAN BEING!

David has never held back – he’s told his story of psychiatric survival, activism, and EMPOWERMENT on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, on YouTube, and in numerous articles and publications (I especially recommend this one). I know I’m not alone in looking to him as an INSPIRATION, and a leader in the struggle for human rights in mental health care.

Which is why I was so saddened to hear of David’s terrible accident back in December of 2012 – a break of the C7 bone in his neck. He’s now paralyzed, a quadriplegic.

But as Saturday’s MindFreedom Radio broadcast shows, he’s still the same David. Still an activist, still a SPIRTUAL GIANT!

Here are some of the amazing things he had to say…

On being a quadriplegic:

We all have a disaster or catastrophe in our lives; we all die. So, how do you prepare for that? For many decades, I have been in this movement, a social change movement, lead by survivors of the psychiatric system. So I have been preparing a long time…

When this happened, I heard from people all over the world who were very supportive. So, I feel those values of empowerment and support and activism have helped me. How do we react? How do we react? My way of reacting – I tried, from the start, to put a positive light on the resistance. Martin Luther King talked about creative maladjustment. So obviously it’s no fun to be paralyzed. But, how do we be creative about that?

—David Oaks, in this interview

On the importance of activism and living in the moment:

You watch DVDs for adventure. LIVE your adventure! Get in front of these monstrosities. Be peaceful – IT’S HARD – and speak up! There’s nothing like it. Live. LIVE.

Like when I swam in a mountain lake. Ice cold. I was ALIVE, right? So, you can be alive; speak up! Speak up! Write your letter to the editor. Now. Speak up to Congress. Protest….

Hey, guess what, everybody? 100 years from now we are ALL very disabled. Because, guess what? We’re MORTAL. We will all die. So, get your body geared NOW to speak up. Tell people you love that you love them! Speak up about injustice. NOW. TODAY.

—David Oaks

Watch the full interview here:

AND, let’s get busy people. Let’s do exactly what he said – speak up. Now; TODAY!

[Also – I understand that David and his family are currently in need of support as they try to establish the means for David to live independently. Learn more about how you can help at: www.supportdavidoaks.org]

“This I Believe”

The 1950s in booming, post-war America was a different time.  Maybe some of you were alive then – but for me that period is one of many historical eras (the fall of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution) that I have experienced only through textbooks and Hollywood representations. 

I think we all know how accurate these historical dramas can be.

And here’s the funny thing about history books and Hollywood: somehow, by conveying only the “important” events, the “relevant” information, they cut the trajectory of time into chunks (eras/epochs) that seem rather unconnected, making it almost impossible to answer the question “how did we get here [the present day]?”  They tell you almost nothing about the lived experienceof that time, what it meant to be human – and how that translates to the now.

This disagreeable feeling of isolation and ahistorical existence in an epoch preceded by other bounded, objectively defined “epochs” – cut off from the wisdom and slowly stockpiled intellectual stores of generations and forced to rediscover it all, independently, in one lifetime — contributes, at times, to the grayed out feeling of industrialized depression that plagues my “modern” consciousness. 

Which explains, in part, why I find This I Believe so very compelling.

The basic premise: from 1951 to 1955, famed radio journalist Edward R. Murrow hosted a CBS radio program called This I Believe.  Each show featured one person’s 300-500 word essay, a positive statement of an individual (as opposed to dogmatic) belief that formed the basis of that person’s life.  Essayists were celebrities, sometimes [like Jackie Robinson, Helen Keller, Maria Von Trapp] – but more often they were just folk; taxi drivers, high school teachers, homemakers. 

The original call for essays asked explicitly for personal and affirmative statements of belief, “the values which rule your thought and action.”  The historical importance of the project was anticipated and understood from the very beginning:

We are sure the statement we ask from you can have wide and lasting influence. Never has the need for personal philosophies of this kind been so urgent. Your belief, simply and sincerely spoken, is sure to stimulate and help those who hear it. We are confident it will enrich them. May we have your contribution?

(from the original invitation for This I Believe)

The show was a huge success – it was syndicated on air and in print around the world, and a 1952 book containing 100 of the show’s most popular essays was outsold only by The Bible.

Though how many housewives bought the book just for the picture of a very foxy-looking Edward R. Murrow on the inside cover -- well never know

But after four brief years, that window into the philosophical lives and lived experience of Americans closed.  Time passed; one bounded epoch ended and a few more came and went.  The original voices of This I Believe found themselves relegated to the pages of history books and museum glass.

And then, in 2005, the window opened again.  NPR [National Public Radio] revived the program, using a modified version of the original prompt.  Again, the responses came from all walks of life, and all ages, too.  From first graders to folks old enough to remember the original program well.  Best of all, every response – from the 50s and more recently – is stored on the project’s website.

GO.  You may get lost (I know I did!), but what a privelege to wander there, and in such good company.  What a wealth of wisdom, experience!  I can’t stop reading them, each one a priceless snapshot of one, individual human.  Part of what makes them so personal is the real voice of the author speaking directly to you (any of the essays that made the show were read by their authors, and these recordings are saved on the site, too).  But mostly it’s the content: a human being with some years of life on this earth is expressing – in 500 words or less – the single most elemental, important piece of wisdom they’ve gained thus far.

I loved this one.  I found this one to be wise and compelling in its simplicity.  This one was downright inspirational, in an old-fashioned, “American Dream” kind of way (and I believed I had fallen to complete and utter cynicism about such things long ago!).

It feels unbelievably good to partake of a history that’s not a boot in your face (a lá Orwell); that’s not particularly epic or grand but is magnificent just the same.  Magnificently ordinary, a relatable history of folk.  Wholesome, nourishing, and strangely rare in this modern world, like fresh-picked garden vegetables on a summer evening.  It reminds me of what we’ve lost, and how — just by scattering a few seeds and letting nature do the rest — we could claim it again as ours; and righftully so!

[To make comments, visit the original post here.]

LOVE FOR SALE: the trouble with professional caregivers

Remember Dr. Levin?  He was the psychiatrist featured in the New York Times a few weeks back as a case study in the new, industrialized form of psychiatric care that is increasingly becoming the norm: he describes himself as similar to “a good Volkswagen mechanic” and offers his many clients 15 minute in-and-out appointments, which start off with a symptoms checklist, move on abruptly to diagnosis, and finish with prescription(s) for psychotropics.  There simply isn’t time for exchanging pleasantries – like the patient’s actual name – or for suggesting alternatives to medication like talk therapy or mind-body healing practices.

LOOK OUT: Dr. Levin isn’t a scary singularity, and neither is psychiatry as a field.

The article describing him was part of a series (Doctors INC), in which the NYT is documenting a similar shift that is happening across all fields of Western medicine.  A shift from individualized, long term care of a small number of patients (50-60) taking place in modest clinical practices (maybe even home-based!) to industrialized, “efficient,” high volume traffic of literally thousands of patients taking place in hospitals.

In the series’ most recent article, “More Physicians Say No to Endless Workdays,” we see this theme as it plays out in a single family composed of three generations of doctors.  Grandpa had a private, mostly home-based practice (Grandma used to boil urine samples on the stove!).

"Grandma, why does dinner smell like Kevin's diaper?"

Father had a private practice but spent most of his hours at the office and was always on call; and finally Daughter, Dr. Kate Dewar, is working in a hospital emergency room, a salaried doctor for a private corporation.

She cites several reasons for the shift – in her current position she is never on call, she has the opportunity to perform more “interesting procedures… collect[ing] rare and difficult interventions like merit badges,” and she can “fix stuff and move on,” not having to worry about pesky follow-up or long term care.

But Ms. Dewar’s primary motivating factor was the birth of her twins in February.  As a salaried ER doctor working for a corporation, she can work fewer hours, spending more time with her children.

Understandable.  And admirable!

But wait…

“Look, I’m as committed to being a doctor as anyone. I went back to work six weeks after my boys were born. I love my job,” said Dr. Kate Dewar. “But I was in tears walking out of the house that first day. I’m the mother of twins, and I want to be there to feed them, play games with them or open presents with them on Christmas morning. Or at least I want the option to do those things without fearing I’ll be called back to the hospital.”

The pain of that first week’s separation was lessened somewhat because she worked in the hospital’s new pediatric emergency department. “I felt better knowing that at least I was taking care of somebody else’s babies even if I couldn’t be with mine,” she said.

(from the NYT article “More Physicians Say No to Endless Workdays;” emphasis added)

I thought she wanted to spend more time with her kids?  At 6 weeks old, her babies are still well inside the gestation period, three pre-natal trimesters plus the post-natal “fourth trimester.”  Put simply, though they’re not physically connected by umbilical cord anymore, they still make up a mother-baby dyad.  Those babies need mama.  24/7.  And mama needs them, too.  It’s biological, instinctual.

The Vicious Cycle

So this is how the vicious social services cycle begins.  Instead of directing her instinctive surge of mothering energy towards her own children, Dr. Dewar directs it – for profit – towards the children of strangers [probably using some of the profits to hire a professional caregiver to direct inferior mothering energy at her own children]. Finding themselves out-of-place and re-placed in the professional setting, the mothers of Dr. Dewar’s surrogate, hospitalized children will then be forced to redirect their own energies, starting a double-edged chain reaction: all of the mothers continuously frustrated by failed attempts to mother other things (not the children they were designed to care for) and none of the children benefiting from the highly personalized and unconditional-love-charged energy of their own mothers.

When professionals take the place of parents, everyone suffers – biological parents, children; the surrogate (professional) parents, their charges, and their true (biological) children.   No one is completely free to give the gift nature designed us all to give [unconditional love!]; no one fully experiences the benefits of such an amazing gift successfully given/received.  Will the defecit created in all of these [physically, emotionally, spiritually] frustrated  folks pave the way for more social “services” later in life?  It’s a strong possibility.

No matter how well paid, professionals simply can’t love children like biological parents can.  And love is what a baby needs, above all else — even the most critical condition, premature baby.  Skin-to-skin contact.  The reassuring voices of people baby knows well (though she has only recently been able to see them, she’s been hearing their every word for the past nine months!).

Love.  Free.  Unconditional.  Forever.

[to make comments visit the original post here]

“Research Scientist,” who doesn’t seem to mind bad data about the “bipolar child”

The plaque on the door of my boss’s office says “Research Scientist.”  He’s a professor at a major university, a specialist in the intersection of children’s mental health and schools (special education, specifically).  He’s also a national expert on a specific type of children’s mental health service system, known as a “system of care.”  This is what he did his dissertation on, and he is regularly consulted by governmental and corporate policymakers because of his “expertise” in this area and his access to huge data collections.

Right now his biggest grant (and therefore biggest research project) is with a system of care in our state.  They have contracted him to help them improve their practices by making them more “evidence-based” – ie informed by data and statistics.   He and his team (including me) are responsible for gathering data about the families in the community in need of mental health services, and then formulating that data into policy recommendations for the system of care.  In general, we, the evaluation team, are charged with ensuring that the community and the system of care in particular have the best evidence possible to inform their service design.

About a week ago, a “parents of seriously mentally ill children” support group from the area that this system of care serves sent out a newsletter, their first.  The newsletter contained in it two pages of “information” about [childhood] bipolar disorder.  Unfortunately, these two pages were riddled with inaccuracies and outright lies of a – frankly – disturbing nature.  I have outlined the bulk of those inaccuracies here.

These are a few particularly striking quotes:

Several factors may contribute to bipolar disorder including… abnormal brain structure and brain function.

(from the Bipolar Disorder fact sheet)

Right now, there is no cure for bipolar disorder.  Doctors often treat children who have the illness in a similar way they treat adults.  Treatment can help control symptoms.  Treatment works best when it is ongoing, instead of on and off.

(from the Bipolar Disorder fact sheet)

The day that I received this newsletter, I brought it to my boss’s (remember – Research Scientist) attention.  I read him the first section of the info sheet.  His response was to groan and say “Yeah… that sounds bad.”  I asked him what we were going to do about it.

He paused.  He stalled.  He mumbled.  He said things like “this issue is very close to my heart.  You know that.”

And then he said, “Let me talk to my mentors about it.  I’ll get back to you on Monday.”

GREAT.

He’s been avoiding me ever since.  I mean, just straight not talking to or communicating with me in any way.

So I bided my time.  And finally, this morning, he called to catch up on what’s happened this week, gleefully prattling about minor business items.  Pretending the whole conversation about that info sheet had never happened.  Finally, he said, “Well, that’s all there is on my agenda.  Anything else you can think of?”

YES.  As a matter of fact there was something else I could think of – the elephant in the room.  The childhood bipolar disorder “fact” sheet.  The fact that we are supposed to provide good data to the community, and this sheet contains almost nothing but bad data.

This is how our conversation went:

Conversation with a Research Scientist

ALT: So what do you think about the childhood bipolar disorder info sheet?

Research Scientist: The what?

ALT: The childhood bipolar disorder sheet that the parent support group sent around.

Research Scientist: Well, I asked my respected friends and colleagues, I talked to a few of them… and none of them seemed disturbed by it like you were.  Archaic, yes.  But that’s just the status quo.  As one of my friends said, “that’s the company line.”

ALT: What company?

Research Scientist: Oh… [backpedaling]… oh, he meant the US Government, I think, not a company.

ALT: I don’t really care what your colleagues think about it.  What do you think about it?

Research Scientist: Nothing.

ALT: (laughing) What?

Research Scientist: I don’t think anything about it.

ALT: That’s impossible.  You can’t read it and not think anything about it.

Research Scientist: I don’t think anything about it.  [pause] I think I support the work of the parent support group.  I support what they do.

ALT: That’s great… but what do you think about what’s written on the sheet about childhood bipolar disorder? Do you think it’s accurate?

Research Scientist: What do you want me to do?

ALT: YOU have to make a decision.  I haven’t been in the adult world very long, but that’s part of it, isn’t it?  Something comes along, and it’s inaccurate, and it’s your responsibility to address that!  Do you think this info sheet is accurate?

Research Scientist: Well, no it’s not accurate.  But that’s the status quo.

ALT: So you DO think something about it.  You think it’s inaccurate.

Research Scientist: ALT, [laughing] I read things that are inaccurate every day without doing anything about them.  In the New York Times, in the Huffington Post.

ALT: That’s different; those are newspapers.

Research Scientist: No – this is a newsletter so it’s basically the same.

ALT: Those papers are read by millions of Americans across the country.  This newsletter is distributed by the parent support group to the parents in our area.  The area where we were contracted to help them improve their practice by making it more evidence-based.  This is bad data.  And you know it.

Research Scientist: So what do you want me to do?  Tell me what you want me to do.

ALT: I want you to tell me your thoughts about this info sheet, and then I want you to make a decision about what to do.

Research Scientist: Ok. [… long pause…] Well I have decided to ask Sharon [member of parent group that put the newsletter together] about it.

ALT: Do you have any idea what question you might ask Sharon?

Research Scientist: No.  I haven’t decided that yet.  And I have a few weeks before I see her, so I have time to think about it.

ALT: Ok.  Well, I look forward to that conversation.

[… extended silence…]

I hardly need add that my boss, the Research Scientist, will not ask Sharon anything.  By delaying action needlessly (why not email or call Sharon today instead of waiting three weeks?) he hopes that I will get the message to drop it and he will be allowed to nothing.  And to preserve a semblance of ignorance (to him, that equals “innocence”) on the topic.

Some other things: note how this Research Scientist will do anything to avoid stating his own opinion about the information contained on the sheet.  He will quote other’s opinions, but even with all my direct questioning only fails to evade me once.  He does not find the accuracy of the information sheet particularly relevant, it seems.  Likewise, even though he is the principal investigator (he has ultimate responsibility in this grant), he will do ANYTHING to avoid making a decision.  Even if that means asking an inferior, young and inexperienced minion with only a BA in an unrelated field what to do. [I am speaking in terms of the academic hierarchy in place, which is rigid and unforgiving.  I am lower than the lowliest pot-smoking grad student here and my opinions count for basically nothing],  THIS RESEARCH SCIENTIST CANNOT MAKE DECISIONS FOR HIMSELF.  Lost the power to do it years ago.  Another result of fine academic training, I expect.

Also, I think his use of the phrase “company line” is incredibly telling.

Folks, this is what the research scientists look like in real life.  BEWARE.

[to make comments, visit the original post here]

Empowerment in the context of trauma

Empowerment: the new favorite buzzword of mental health policymakers.  I’ve already mused a little bit about what that word might mean – both to them [certainly not having much to do with agency or self-actualization] and those of us interested in practicing true psychiatry (literally, soul healing).

A few more thoughts about empowerment in the specific context of trauma and trauma resolution, drawn mostly from famed trauma specialist and mind-body healer Dr. Peter Levine’s book Waking the Tiger.

According to Levine, trauma response is a necessary survival skill common to all members of the animal kingdom, and there are three basic, built-in strategies: fight, flight, or freeze.  After the previous two efforts (fight or flight) have failed, action is suspended and the intense survival energy is literally frozen in the motionless body of the prey.  This “freeze” response  is helpful for a couple reasons: 1. playing dead may lure the predator into a false sense of security, allowing for future escape 2. if escape is not possible, it is the body’s natural anesthesia for the coming pain of death.  Interestingly, for the prey who escape the event is not over until the discharge of the frozen energy – via convulsions or shaking — occurs.  It is an essential and instinctive conclusion to the traumatic episode.  It is how they move on with their lives sans emotional baggage/trauma.

Again, this is a response seen in all members of the animal kingdom; the gazelle trapped in the jaws of a tiger, the mouse being batted around by your adorable tabby cat.  The frozen, seemingly lifeless body.  The surge of energy and quick escape at the opportune moment.  And then the shaking or convulsions afterwards — a release of the stored energy.

The “release of energy” part  is where human beings can get into trouble.  A lot of times our natural traumatic response does not reach its instinctive conclusion, and instead the energy is trapped in an ever-deepening cycle inside the body, undischarged and untamed.

So a complete trauma response looks like this:

And an incomplete response looks like this:

Levine’s premise (based on over 20 years of clinical work with the traumatized) is that the trauma response can be completed at any time – even many years later.  What is essential to completing the response [ie, healing] is not necessarily a cerebral re-living or re-telling of the memory (though this could help), but allowing the body to experience the completed, successful response, and to achieve the empowering reality of a challenge (trauma) successfully met. 

So in the context of traumatic response, empowerment is an instinctive self-actualization.  The means to achieving a complete trauma response are built in, biologically, to the mammalian brain

Which means: self-actualization doesn’t have to be an entirely esoteric, philosophical pursuit!  

And you don't have to read all/any of these

Great news, because overly cerebral processes often end up feeling artificial and insincere.  A healthy dose of instinct can clear that right up.

[to make comments visit the original post here]

Irresponsible therapy as sorcery

Sorcery – the Seven Arts (Salvador Dali, 1957)

You may find it remarkable that I am classifying therapists with sorcerers.  There is a fine line between the Healer who heals and the one who, due to ignorance, may cause harm.  In working with patients, I have found that archaic language and images are the best means of relating to the spirit or the unconscious.  Referring to an ignorant therapist as a “practitioner of iatrogenic illness” would evoke little feeling in the patient and there would be no affective connection to the healer/therapist.  Therefore, I use the word sorcerer in order to make the point about the seriousness of some of the actions taken by therapists towards patients.  This affective connection is crucial to the task of allowing the soul to open to the process of healing.

– Eduardo Duran, Healing the Soul Wound

Empowerment/self-actualization

You remember that 2006 NASMHPD report on morbidity in the “seriously mentally ill” population, so often cited in the current literature, the main navigational tool charting the course of mental health policy for the past decade or so (that I wrote about here and here)?  One of the main policy recommendations to come out of that report was that caregivers should “support wellness and empowerment of persons served, to improve mental and physical well-being.”

Sounds good, but don’t be fooled – they didn’t really mean that.  What they want is to “empower individuals to engage in services” – empower people to become lifelong consumers.  What they want is controlled [false] empowerment as a strategy for achieving lifelong treatment plan adherence (non-compliance/non-adherence being the $100,000,000,000 problem for pharmaceutical companies – their words.)

Despite the insincerity, the basic policy recommendation for empowerment got me to thinking.  What would true empowerment amongst the seriously mentally ill population (or anyone, for that matter) look like?

Define the terms

By now, you’re probably aware – I view words as living entities with history.*  Knowing this history is key to using language precisely (ie, making it work for you as opposed to expressing the message of someone else attempting to exert hegemonic control over thoughts and ideas).

EMPOWER

1: to give official authority or legal power to.  2: ENABLE.  3: to promote the self-actualization or influence of.

ACTUALIZE

1: to make actual; REALIZE. (self-actualize: to make oneself real or actual)

To make oneself real.  That’s a very interesting concept.

[NOTE:  the word is “self-actualize.”  As in “do-it-yourself.”  This means that you cannot “self-actualize” someone else; only you can self-actualize yourself.

Again, this means that you can’t manipulate or talk someone into self-actualizing, you cannot plant the idea to do it in someone else’s head [inception], even if you have decided (out of love, paternalism, condescension, or compassion) that it would be “for their own good.”]

I find it more useful to speak of “supporting the empowerment/self-actualization” of someone else; this phrasing makes it clear who’s in charge.  Our hero, seeking empowerment and self-actualization, by asking that all important question “Who am I?” Or, perhaps, “Who am I in the context of my community, my life-world?” Our hero is the owner of the process; we (the supporters) are merely the furniture in the house that he built.  Useful – yes.  Something to lean on – certainly.  And that’s it.

To make oneself real

Now we’re getting into philosophy here, but there are a few things to be said about our hero’s [everyone’s/our] quest that apply at a larger-than-the-individual scale.

The first being that self-actualization must, by definition, be a subjective, individualized process.

Do you require community to be real?  Relationships with friends and family, affirmations from the culture as a whole that you are a worthwhile person, that you are an agent?  Or does self-actualization consist of a sort of feedback loop between your body, mind, and soul, your actions and your thoughts [ie, the actualizing activity is taking place internally]?  This may be culturally determined… or it may be your entirely conscious choice.

Empowerment for me will look different than empowerment for you.

Diversity!  Difference! Life!

How exciting.

Self-actualization cannot be compartmentalized.

Can you be self-actualized in your professional life, but remain a non-entity when it comes to dealing with your family?  Or with past trauma?  Or with authority figures in your life (be they doctors, teachers, government officials, et al)?

Emphatically, NO.

It just doesn’t work that way.  Being real means being in reality – all of it.  The good, the bad, the ugly.  Any attempt to abbreviate your realness, confining it to a self-constructed category, will bring with it, inevitably, despair.

This applies to everyone. I especially like the way that Eduardo Duran applies this concept to those therapists who think they can be “healers” in their professional lives while being desperately in need of healing in their own personal lives:

The identity of the healer is critical.  Over the years, I have always asked interns and staff a simple question: “Who are you?”  The question is not rhetorical, and the answer requires exploration into who they are as a person, who they are in the healing situation, and who they are in their life-world… Very few of the interns understand the question of identity as one relating to who they are as a spiritual being.  The importance of spiritual identity starts to become clear as they begin to understand that a relationship with spiritual entities is part of the work that we do in the clinical world.

In most Traditional Healing cultures, the Healers embody the healing energy in their life and in all that they do. Western healers have a way of compartmentalizing their role as a healer from what they do in “real life.” …

At this point, I ask the reader who is interested in the healing process, “Who are you?”  If you are interested merely in techniques that will ameliorate behaviors in the short and even long term, then these ideas may not be for you.  However if you are even remotely interested in the notion of soul healing from the ongoing soul wounding that is encountered in every aspect of life in the modern corporate world, then I encourage you to read on…

Your own soul must be healed so that you can attend to the patient who is presenting with a wounded soul.  You cannot do for others what you haven’t done for yourself.

(Eduardo Duran, Healing the Soul Wound)

To self-actualize: to heal your own soul?  And, having healed your soul, to lead by example the rest of us who seek healing [self-actualization] ourselves?

[to make comments, visit the original post here]


* I’m talking about LOGOS; words that live.  You might be familiar with this example:

“In the beginning was the Word [LOGOS], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.  (John 1:1-5)”