Oh, I thought your claim was that in an individual, a drug should have the same action every time if it's the drugs effects, which we already know is false, but generalizing that to the entire human race is much more fallacious. One might as well say the same thing for opiates, which make me extremely uncomfortable and which are only of any value when in extreme pain while many people enjoy enough to become addicted to. And that's a drug which we mostly understand it's action in the brain.
Sorry if you got out of my body-as-system comment that I am unfamiliar with conversion disorders and the like.
SalooM said:
How can you explain the fact, that people who have these kind of somatic complaints, when they work on intensifying them and not getting rid of them, they reach a state of breakthrough which leads to a disappearance of the symptoms from subsequent sessions?
While I don't actually believe this is an established fact, there's no more reason to attribute it to the inherent value of exploring these somatic complaints instead of placebo, as long as we're going there. Regarding the juice, not eating for 8-12 hours on it's own is enough to give me low blood sugar, much less in such a state of mental arousal.
I'm not sure how I tend to object to Grof as non-objective (hah), as I've only mentioned it once, but the therapeutic frame in which his observations are embedded prevents any objective information from coming out of it. The whole dance of therapist and patient is an orchestration, which the unconscious readily responds to. I went through my own period, intentionally exploring Grof's map and was able to create the experiences easily, but as soon as I felt I had reached the end of what it had to provide and switched to other explorations, my LSD experiences no longer matched it. That's one of the main points behind Alpert/Leary/Metzner's
The Psychedelic Experience, that with your own imagination and ingenium, you can experience any of these maps. That Grof's model may help in certain therapeutic situations, I won't doubt, not because of any truth it might contain, but because it gives opportunity for the unconscious to bring forth new arrangements and behaviors.
Psychoanalytic work is in no way scientific. There isn't anywhere in the world of psychology where Freud is considered mainstream. People completely untreated recover at the same rates as those who undergo psychodynamic treatment. As to your characterization for Freud, he abandoned the "trauma hypothesis" and kicked out several analysts from the association who continued to publish papers linking neurosis to childhood trauma.
None of Grof's information is objective. It has nothing to do with whether he is lying or if his patients were lying or not.