Malcolm Ocean's roamblog

Internal Trust-Dancing

created 2021-08-28 · edited 2021-09-07 · open in Roam

7 linked references

February 6th, 2024

my threads on twitter

February 2nd, 2024

January 2nd, 2024

unit dev call w JF › full-fractal buy-in
  • Internal Trust-Dancing
    • M > so explore making this move, from a part that really likes the propositional technique you mentioned earlier
      • of bringing that part into these recognitions
      • J > ...okay, something happened
        • held the two (liking propositions, self-evident need for satisfying all)
        • sense of shame that came up
        • then went for it again, with an inner conflict I'm working with
          • got a blinding white "NO"
          • so sense of projection
          • I would rather hold out in guerilla warfare than think about seceding or acquiescing
          • M > so find the part the NO was at
          • J > I was kind of in both
          • M > NO to each other? yeah
          • M > so seems like these parts don't have a sense that a win-win is possible
            • or don't trust the other not to hoodwink them on the way there
          • M > is there a way for them to recognize together that
            • IF there were a solution that fully satisfied both of them, ACTUALLY, they WOULD like that — they'd prefer that over the stalemate
              • J > mmm, sense of lightness, grace, relief
        • M > a move here of like "well, it makes sense that you don't trust me and that you're digging in your heels while you don't trust me"
          • [J intense look on face, kinda still, stiff]
          • impressions, as they arose, were something like...
            • the part that has been getting its way... made contact with the sense of "I see why you wouldn't trust me"
              • very emotive, sense of solidarity/progress
              • then that part came down
              • and there was a bringing in the part that was more antagonistic / not as much getting its way
              • and brought the "I see why you wouldn't trust me" to that part
              • and it was like "nah I'm in the right"
              • and then the first part kinda backed up from the solidarity into a "fuck you"
              • M > seems like the symmetry has shifted dramatically
          • this node of "I can see why you wouldn't trust me" feels interesting but doesn't fit back with the tree
            • M > well the sense that it makes that the other doesn't trust... comes from the recognition of the self-evident stuff
        • M > does it seem like the two parts do actually see this? [together]
          • IF there were a solution that fully satisfied both of them, ACTUALLY, they WOULD like that — they'd prefer that over the stalemate
          • J > let's see if I can fit all that in working memory...
            • they don't seem to be able to do that, quickly
            • seems like what I've been doing is feeling into the part, and bringing a thing in contact with it
              • and it feels like this would be bringing both parts up AND the recognition
          • M > I could break it down
          • M > bring up part A... can you see this? IF there were a solution that fully satisfied both of them, ACTUALLY, they WOULD like that — they'd prefer that over the stalemate
            • J > yeah, self-evident
            • M > now bring up part B... can you access the memory of that feeling self-evident to part A, moments ago?
            • J > ow
              • uncomfortable, I seem to be flinching from understanding that part while embodying it from its perspective
              • even being able to be in a state where...
                • I'm imagining... a 6-party parliament, some new event
                • figuring out coalitions
                • for the parts to be able to interface with the full-fractal buy-in
                • it's hard to do that when they can't even occupy consciousness
                  • M > together or at all?
                  • J > at all, from their own perspective
                  • M > yeah so maybe either the first part or some third as-yet-unnamed part is objecting to you taking the other part's perspective
                  • J > yeah could be part A but seemed more like the broader system
                    • when you get a flash of how someone else is seeing you, and it feels unacceptable
                    • not sure what part is rejecting what tho
                    • M > move of differentiation, like OH, you actually DO see me that way, and that doesn't mean I have to

September 7th, 2021

convo w Riccardo Volpato › open questions

NNTD pith instructions discussion

discussion ensued! (M is me) › M > a few pieces, here: › 2. sometimes it can be really valuable to speak to the la…

August 30th, 2021

  • dialogue with Qiaochu re Internal Trust-Dancing and many related topics
    • background context of what QC is working with:
      • Q > like, there's a young(ish) part that takes over and wants to do dissociate-y stuff like go on youtube or whatever, like "fuck you, no more responsibility and productivity, no more 'meditation', time to fuck around forever, you're not my dad"
        • which moreover i have not had much success dialoguing with, parts like this (possibly this specific part) seem to want to hide their motivations from me b/c they think if i know their motivations i'll try to deconstruct them or sth
        • which... is not totally implausible
        • mark: "the thing i try to do is to fully drain my volition out of the resisting or angry part"
        • "ways in which i'll try to subtly control that part"
        • "treat it as pure interface"
        • anyway this is why i stayed up until 4am last night
        • "maintaining the intention to meditate" or even to be "responsible" or "productive" broadly consistently produces like increasing amounts of resistance from this part that breaks through eventually
        • this ADHD counterwill thing
        • part of it feels like it ties back to rationality productivity stuff and part of it feels like it ties back to grad school productivity stuff and part of it feels like it goes way further back to parental and maybe school stuff
        • that was too many words
        • this thing is pretty central
        • if i could make any progress on this thing that would be amazing
        • if "i" could make any "progress" on this "thing"
          • M > "if you and the part could make progress on dialoguing/perspective-taking" ?
            • in my recent internal trust-dancing case study I was literally like "the 'symptom', in the sense of the therapeutic reconsolidation process, is not the client's behavior that he wants to change. it's the fact that he's of two minds about it and can't seem to talk about it within himself"
      • Q > the word "productivity" by itself already has charge to it
      • Q > starting to hit diminishing returns on lying in bed but wow was it useful for draining out tension from a bunch of parts of my body and maybe mind
        • the more tension drains out the more i have access to emotions so that seems good
      • Q > i had a sort of terrible thought about like... sort of arms race dynamics between layering and delayering, personally and interpersonally
        • like "every part of the bodymind that can be made even somewhat legible can become a target for layering / force / coercion"
        • like i have a sort of fantasy that in The Past coercion was mostly being done at the level of actions
        • like "you must farm this field for me, you peasant" kind of thing
        • but once psychology exists as a field and the interiority of human experience becomes a reified thing in the zeitgeist you can start doing coercion at the psychological level
        • not only "you must act this way" but "you must feel and think this way about it"
        • and that gets people fucked up on a whole nother level than sort of mere action-level coercion
        • mostly thinking about this for myself although it has applications elsewhere
        • the mistrust my rebellious part has for my... "fixing" part... has to do with this sort of thing
        • needing to continue to hide large parts of myself from myself so they can't become targets for coercion
        • that makes sense!
        • that's a really great thing to do like damn
        • aw i softened a bit
        • alright so clearly there is a part of me that thinks coercion is great, actually, or at least is desperate enough to use coercion to try to get what it wants
    • Q > @Malcolm i am also reading the date scheduling / canceling post and it is also being helpful for me [blockquotes in this section are largely from that post]
      • i really like foregrounding distrust
      • this has been like blocking me from doing IFS-y stuff, i am in retrospect very surprised it's not more of an explicit IFS step
      • like damn there do be a lot of distrust going on here
      • i'm remembering how liberating it felt every single time i expressed distrust in a circle
      • like people would say they were feeling a certain way or whatever and i loved responding with like "i don't buy it"
      • that was a very aggro phrasing but like
      • still
      • sometimes it went extremely well!
      • there was a guy at an AMP where i was volunteering who v much struck me as sort of using sadness as a distraction from anger and like 3 other people in the circle bought it (the sadness) but the facilitator didn't seem convinced and he sort of called me and i was like "i don't buy it" (edited)
      • and that turned out to unlock a whole thing for him
      • i'm proud of that read
      • i said something slightly nicer i was like "you look like you're trying to be vulnerable but i still feel really tense and unsettled"
      • "like i'm waiting for something else to come up that you're still hiding" something like that
      • > C: [slowly and with wonder] Wow. It’s even difficult to talk about that. It really feels like… an agreement, that doesn’t make logical sense. But it feels like, yeah: when you respect that, we are together. [Perhaps the basic juxtaposition here has something to do with separateness and togetherness!]
      • "It wasn’t a compromise, it was a real agreement." oh i love this
        • i hate "compromises" so much
        • compromises are compromising ! 😡
        • (like compromising integrity)
        • M > "this system is compromised" = exactly
      • Q > okay, so there's something i-rebel-part don't trust about i-fixing-part
        • i-rebel-part don't even want to articulate what it is because that's part of the mistrust
        • M > that makes sense - quite common
        • i-rebel-part am going to be very angry at i-fixing-part if i-fixing-part says "i respect that you don't trust me in this way" and doesn't mean it
        • which is part of the mistrust
        • wow this is great
        • and Here We Are
        • i-fixing-part is sort of desperately flailing for something to say that they would be able to mean
        • M > hm, maybe "I would like to be able to say something to you you would trust and I'm not sure what that is"
          • Q > i think no suggestions for now
            • M > legit. you're doing great
              • and I'm here if you want me
        • i-fixing-part is like "the sort of part that makes suggestions that are a bit forced and not quite right"
        • it is The Facilitator
        • and i-rebel-part is like "no the way you facilitate is gross and dumb stop doing it"
        • so even the act of suggesting labels / schemas is being interpreted by me-rebel-part as a kind of implicit siding with me-fixing-part
        • > C: Haha sure, yeah. You know, it’s like, “you just care care about scheduling these things, but how we’re going to feel after you know, afterwards, like after the date?” The date-canceller is not even worried about that, it just wants to the other part to take that into account—like “when you schedule that, consider that. How are we going to feel after the date? Are going to enjoy it? Or?” Yeah, yeah. But that was completely like, invisible before. It’s not bad, like, it’s not afraid of that. It just wants to take that into account. Yeah, that’s it.
          • wow this is object-level relevant to my life
          • i frequently schedule things without even considering how it's going to feel to actually attend them
          • going to OAK was like a huge huge version of this
          • aside re frame dialogue
            • > M: Yeah. People have no idea the extent to which so much of human conversation is conducted in a way that is saying: “No, you don’t get to have your reality.” Internally and interpersonally, it is near constant and it’s such a basic thing, that it doesn’t even occur to us usually, how important it is to say: “You can have your reality. It’s different than mine, and you can have it.” And that’s in part because we don’t trust that others are gonna let us have our reality, but then, one of the most self-grounding moves can actually be saying: “I’ve got a different reality, but also I respect that you’ve got yours.”
              • Q > this is really good. i think about this in relation to twitter constantly
          • like i sort of grit my teeth through the decision of going to OAK. i kind of impulsively committed to it while holding my nose so i wouldn't have to consider everything it meant to do that. and that's a common way i make decisions and commit to things generally
          • because the alternative feels like getting mired in a thick tangle of objections i don't feel like i have time to sort through
          • at least one part of me, probably several, is really afraid of getting "really really stuck, even meta-stuck" like we were in grad school
          • but getting unstuck with this kind of grit-my-teeth decision-making is producing karma / technical debt / distrust
          • and that's why my left shoulder started tensing up at OAK
          • it feels good to hang out somewhere around here
      • Q > @Malcolm i think the trust-dancing stuff is plausibly a route to making a pretty general case for why therapeutic techniques stop working over time
        • like when they're freshly made clients don't have a concept of what's happening yet so there's nothing to distrust
        • M > that's been my model for months, but for the same reason I couldn't point it out 😅
        • over time as people keep slightly misusing the technique it accumulates distrust, that the technique doesn't give enough room to surface
        • this is like the same thought as the thought i had about CFAR techniques ages ago in some sense but it feels configured differently or attached to different concepts this time
        • man. foregrounding distrust. good shit
        • M > the therapeutic techniques are all in principle oriented towards welcoming resistance
          • but they don't take as an assumption that any particular approach will tend to have a blindspot that leaves some parts hanging
          • and they have trouble listening to "no, this whole thing isn't working. I can't tell you what I need, because you don't know how to listen. you need to learn a new way to listen."
          • something like that
          • of course, my whole trust-dancing thing almost certainly (kinda by definition) has a similar blindspot, but it's probably smaller and it at least is proactively aware that it has one (edited)
          • Q > metatherapyyyyyy
            • oh man it's happening
            • truly the metatherapy that can be techniquified is not the eternal metatherapy
        • > Yeah, and then there’s a whole meta piece that would need to come in if one of the parts started to have distrust in this process itself.
        • Q > some neurons are connecting around like "going off in a direction that hasn't been error-checked" (from the protocol), layering, suppressed distrust (edited)
          • > M: Right, but the simpler solution to avoiding punishment is almost always to avoid the system that’s punishing you. which means you will systematically undermine your systems and commitments.
          • this other post is great too lol various rebellious parts of me are like "YES"
          • laughing out loud
          • this control theory oscillation piece is v nice too
          • reminds me of borderline black-white stuff but much more general
          • it's nice to have a clean and relatively neutral handle for it
          • "oscillations"
          • great stuff
          • story of my life
        • Q > i'm probably gonna try to tweet about it after the retreat
          • after i maybe actually attempt some stuff in this direction first
          • the note you made about difficulty self-facilitating resonates with me also tho
        • M > yeah, I'm not sure what's going on there — would love to model it together with you
        • Q > like i'd have to facilitate it in a way that doesn't feel like siding with me-fixer-part
        • M > right, which might be tough
        • Q > i think the IFS books do basically say this, about like how IFS doesn't work if you don't do it "from Self"
        • M > totally
          • and I was initially like "maybe you don't need Self to do this"
        • Q > it is basically that thing but it helps for me to be able to foreground "okay but what specifically do my parts distrust about each other"
        • M > but I'm second-guessing that, a little. like maybe if you want to self-facilitate, you need Self
          • yeah, or like, insofar as one part is claiming to be Self and facilitating IFS, and other parts don't trust that part... what specifically don't they trust?
          • and like "oh yeah? you're Self? well, prove it by respecting that I don't trust that you are, and finding a way to earn my trust. if you were really Self, you'd be able to do that"
        • Q > i wish [friend] were here so she could see this
        • M > (that frame is probably bad but there's something adjacent)
          • we can share it all with her after
        • Q > this feels really relevant to stuff i've seen come up for her
          • nice
          • like i think she specifically mentioned something like parts pretending to be Self at one point, or something in that direction anyway
        • M > ahhh, yeah
          • I've never had that in those terms, because I never IFS'd seriously
        • Q > aah jeez like in some sense this feels like real conceptual progress but part of the progress involves a clearer understanding of this arms-race dynamic i mentioned earlier
          • it feels daunting
        • M > but part of why I never IFS'd seriously is that by the time I got seriously curious about it I was already distrustful of some other more nebulous Upstarty type concept that was basically equivalent to a part pretending to be self
        • Q > like oh man more things get reified more things can become targets for coercion that's still there
          • oh dear
        • M > on these notes—I did spend a couple moments seriously thinking about whether publishing this annotated case study was a good idea
          • decided on net it probably was, even if it ends up weaponized sooner or later
        • Q > yeah i appreciate that
        • M > this dialogue with you feels like a huge win on several fronts that is basically worth it in and of itself—there's a lot to figure out here and {I want/need your help}
          • (the {} part feels a little off)
          • (one piece I could add is that I want/need help from all of your parts..!?) (edited)
        • Q > including the parts that don't trust parts of you eh :sweat_smile:
        • M > exactly.
          • including any parts that don't trust that they're included in your utterance above or this one I'm making now, although I'm not gonna ask them to believe me on that front unless they have what they need for that to be believable
        • Q > aw this is nice. i think i've felt like i couldn't talk to you while being honest about my various levels of distrust and now i feel less like that
        • M > glad to hear it
          • and that makes a lot of sense
        • D > Hot take: any part that is claiming to be the self is pretending because the self is not a part
        • M > right, but like, any "voice"
          • but yes, this is why ITD demotes the whole concept of Self and is just like "but do other parts trust you? and if not, how would you earn their trust?" (edited)
          • (am reminding myself that this is #journal-qc and we may want to go elsewhere if we get into a longer convo about stuff)
        • M > like the "Self" might not be a part, but it's also not automagically all of me, and it still doesn't get to monopolize the "I" pronoun :P

August 14th, 2021

  • Notes on Malcolm Ocean - Internal Trust-Dancing - internal NNTD - internal conflict - Working with conflict - Parts work - Internal Double Crux - courage and defensiveness
    • Malcolm blog post: malcolmocean.com/2021/08/internal-trust-dancing-date-scheduling-cancel…
    • Notes August 25th, 2021
      • two-chair work (a different practice, perhaps relevant)
      • in coherence therapy, it's often letting the clients stumble into it - can be useful (bc the surprise is... spontaneous?) - and also sometimes slow
      • M: "I respect that you don't trust me" doesn't generally arise spontaneously
      • M is engaging with the parts less as "beings" and more as "perspectives" or frames
        • practice of perspective-taking / multidimensional perspective
        • frame bridging... frame dialogue
        • non-empathic perspective-taking
          • not anti-empathic, but on a different... intellectual/structural level? rather than compassion-based or "what would it feel like" but -- what does the world look like from that point of view
    • Notes August 15th, 2021 on what this process is about, what it's for, how to describe purpose & structure
      • M > non-empathetic perspective taking
        • structural perspective-taking
        • not NOT empathetic, but not requiring empathy
      • M > It's not trying to sort out what's going on deep down for the parts. It's creating a context that's conducive to them listening to each other and being able to make sense of it together.
        • Creating the capacity for them to talk to each other
      • M > Without sorting out ANY of the object-level details, if we can change the overall stance that the parts are able to take towards each other, then there could be a basis for bringing our creativity to bear on sorting out what's going on, rather than fighting or giving up.
      • (EMS talking about moves that don't break the container of the game... re Finite and Infinite Games)
      • M > This process is aiming towards Juxtaposition ; it's just that what's being juxtaposed is bigger & messier than just a couple of statements
        • you're juxtaposing two vantage points until they parallax
      • S > you had some levels of reconciliation...? one was "I see how anyone in your position couldn't have done anything different"...?
      • -----
      • S > In this ITD process, you're taking a situation that was previously a double bind, and removing the blocks to talking about it!
        • removing the meta-level blocks to metacommunication!
          • M > That ^ is the only problem! #koan
          • S > Yeah, everything else can work itself out over time...
    • Steps!
    • [Approximate transcript, structural more than verbatim]
    • < copy in first unrecorded bit from Malcolm notes >
    • Consciously identified with "I want to go on the date"... but predict that another part will cancel
    • I feel frustrated. I know that I'll regret not going.
    • M: Do you remember what it felt like, the last time you cancelled a date, when you were in the headspace where it made sense to you, to cancel?
    • H: I was anxious and sad. Anxious bc I had a weird feeling "I have to cancel"... sad not because I was cancelling, but some other reason. Idk why I was sad
    • M: In that mode, how did you feel toward the part of you that booked the date?
    • H: Angry! Like I was crazy for doing that. I shouldn't have done that.
    • M: Why not?
    • H: Because now I'm anxious and sad, and I blame that part.
    • M: Currently, are you looking forward to the date on Saturday, in principle?
    • H: Yeah
    • M: What does it feel like, from here, to imagine a version of you on Friday, who is pissed at current-you?
    • H: Avoidance... I don't want to become like that
    • M: Does it feel true, from the perspective of your current mode, does it feel true to say to the other part, I don't want you to feel anxious and sad? Like, I'm not trying to make you feel anxious and sad
    • H: No. It's more like, I don't care what you're going to feel
      • [S: I'd say, he's not in Self towards that part, in IFS terms... or like, blended with Part 1]
      • [M: Yeah, and I keep going - we don't need Part 1 to be friendly toward Part 2 in order to proceed, for trust dancing]
    • M: Well... it seems like, even if this part doesn't care how the other part feels, its own plans are getting thwarted.
      • [S:Trying to establish shared purpose?]
      • [M wants to invent fractional pronouns]
      • [Note: client name comes up around 10:50]
    • M: It might feel true to say, "For what it's worth, I'm not scheduling these dates for the purpose of making you feel sad and anxious. I'm doing it for some other reason."
    • H: That feels true, yeah.
    • M: Cool. Now I'm going to ask if you can get in touch with the other perspective. Do you buy it? Do you think that part is for real?
      • [I would've done some more like, actually getting him into the other part... memory and/or somatic...?]
      • M > I'm wanting the client to speak from kind of a gut sense... I don't feel the need to go "deeper" into feelings unless I don't trust that the part is being accurately represented / if I think the client is "guessing" more than "speaking from"
    • H: Yeah, that feels true, I buy it.
    • M: I figured that would be easy to buy... that part had already acknowledged that it doesn't care, and that's consistent with "I'm not trying to upset you; I'm not accounting for that at all."
    • M: So, there's a few different tones this conversation could take, a few different conversational moves
      • The part that's been cancelling the dates could say, "Well, you're going to need to care, bc if you want to go on these dates you'll need to sort out what's upsetting me."
      • But before making that move, it'd be good to do a same-sidedness part move from that other part's perspective.
    • So if you get in touch with the part that has been cancelling the dates, and say, "Does it feel true to say to the other part, something like, "I'm not thwarting you just for spite. There's something important to what I'm caring for here. I want whatever you're trying to do with these dates to be satisfied; it's just got to be somehow different."
    • H: Yeah, that feels true.
    • M: And the part that's scheduling the dates, does it trust that, from the date-canceller?
    • H: No, it doesn't trust it. It's the same feeling, the feeling of, "that doesn't matter, that's bullshit." So there's no feeling of trust there, no.
    • M: Ok, cool. So I'm going to invite the date-anticipator part to say to the other part, something like, "I don't trust that your reasons matter."
    • H: ... (long pause)
    • M: And I can offer some more verbose phrases, but it sounds like something's already happening.
    • H: Yeah, that's why we have this, that's the thing, that's the conflict. It seems very real.
      • [At this point, I would ask the date-anticipator, what would happen if you take date-canceller's reasons seriously? Or, imagine that you take the reasons seriously... what objections arise?]
      • M > Yeah yeah yeah! That's what you'd do if you were focused on emotional coherence type stuff
    • H: From date-canceller: That's why I do what I do - that's why I stop you.
    • M: There's two kinds of things you might mean by, "That's why I stop you."
      • Because you should care and you don't
      • Because there's factors you're not accounting for
        • S > Huhhh, M & I are having some confusion around this... I'm not understanding how some thing almost "perfectly contradicts"... it's like I would "carve reality at the joints differently?
          • "you don't care about me" vs "you're not caring for these factors"
          • caring about vs caring for
          • kind & effective on a 2x2
            • kind and ineffective
              • kind and effective
            • cold and ineffective
              • cold and effective
    • H: I stop you because you don't care
    • M: Okay, so we've gotten to kind of the crux of the conflict. So that's interesting! Because a few minutes ago, I offered you a thing to say from date-canceller to date-anticipator:
    • It doesn't seem to me that that perfectly contradicts the, "I stop you because you don't care," but it's close. Then it makes sense why the other part doesn't trust this part.
      • [why Part 1 doesn't trust Part 2]
    • H: Yes.
    • M: I'm wondering if there's a way to easily articulate how those two things go together: I'm not trying to thwart you just for spite, AND there's something missing.
      • [Interesting move! Both/and...]
    • H: There is a feeling that makes sense, that I stop you because you don't care, and there's something missing, but it's really difficult to find what is...
    • M: Like, what's missing?
    • H: Yeah. It's a very shallow discussion right now. You don't care, so I won't say to you the real thing. Yeah, I don't care, so I don't even want to know the real thing. And it stops there.
    • M (reflecting that)... So they're actually in agreement there! But they're not in agreement about whether you should go on a date this week.
      • [S notes: I would also invite something like, asking the date-cancelling part, what do you think would happen if you go on a date? Imagine that, and notice what objections come up...]
        • M to S > I like what you're doing, in describing the moves you'd make if this was part-coherence first and not trust-building first
          • and those moves aren't bad or wrong, it's just a different thing from what we're doing here, and doesn't follow at this phase
          • M > You remember the initial name of Coherence Therapy?
          • S > Depth-Oriented Brief Therapy
          • M > Well, this is Breadth-Oriented--
          • S > Deef Therapy?
          • M > Lol
          • M > We're not going any deeper than both parts can go together
    • --------
    • M: From the part that's been cancelling the dates, can you find a place from which to say, and embody: "I respect that you can't trust that my reasons matter."
      • [Ohhhh Malcolm is doing the ladder-blackberries-anxiety move!! Maybe?]
      • M > Yeah, it's a move you could've made in that scene
    • M: And I'm not going to ask you to trust that they matter, if you don't have what you need to trust that.
      • [Oooh hm, that's actually a high level of abstraction / complexity right there, maybe bit far from limbic language?]
    • H: There's some kind of relief
    • M: Say more about that relief
    • H: (long pause) It's even difficult to talk about that. It's really...
      • [I would've invited something like, what's the quality of that relief, as a feeling in the body? And maybe some, "see if you can let that relief be just as big as it wants to be"]
    • H: It feels like an agreement, that doesn't make logical sense, but it feels like, yeah, when you respect that, we are together.
      • [Doesn't make logical sense -- R hemisphere involved?]
    • M: I tear up slightly when you said that. As you said, it's hard to put words to, it's so basic. It's like, "Wait, I can have my reality, though? Like, actually? I'm free to have my reality?"
    • H: Exactly.
    • H: That was really magical. When you said the sentence, it seemed like a compromise. But when I tried to embody the sentence, and that feeling, and that part, then it was different, really doing that. It was different than just hearing the sentence. It wasn't a compromise, it was a real agreement.
    • M: The words are hard, and you're doing a great job of putting into words something that's really subtle and really important. I love it, I love it!
    • H: Okay, thank you
    • M: One analogy I sometimes use for this is, if you think about your eyes... If you hold your finger up between you and the camera, and you're like, which side of my finger is the camera on? Well, both - depending on which eye you ask. So the eyes actually disagree, turns out. But the fact that they disagree is a source of tremendous information. That's how you get depth perception, is that your eyes disagree, and instead of having them argue, your brain goes, "Great, great! I'll use your perspective for this, and your perspective for that, and when I put them together, boom!"
    • And so it's like, you've got one perspective from which it's obvious that you should go on a date.
    • H: Yeah.
    • M: And you've got one perspective from which it's obvious that you shouldn't go on a a date.
    • H: Mhm, exactly, yeah.
    • M: And, what's the 3D view? But before you can even ask, "what's the 3D view?" you need to get out of an argument.
    • H: Yeah.
    • M: I'm interested in knowing... you've done this magical move in one direction, of having the date-cancelling part respect the distrust of the date-scheduling part. I'm wondering if we can find a way to do that in the other direction. What I'm imagining the date-canceller part might say, is something like, "I don't trust that you are taking all of the necessary factors into account, on whatever level of abstraction. I don't trust that you're taking everything into account when you're scheduling these dates."
    • H: Yeah. Well, now the other part is listening. It cares now.
    • M: Wow, yeah
    • H: And now I can see what the real thing is, that the cancelling part is worried about. And it's obvious. [laughing]
    • M: And it always was! From a certain vantage point.
    • H: And it's like, you just care about scheduling this, but how are we going to feel afterwards? It's not even worried about that, it just wants the other part to take that into account. How are we going to feel after the date? Are we going to enjoy it, or...?
      • [I might go into that "or..." -- are we going to enjoy it, or...?]
    • But that was completely invisible before.
    • And that's not bad. It's not afraid of that. Just wants to take that into account, that's it.
    • M: If I were to make a guess... given that you opened this whole conversation by mentioning you had a breakup 8 months ago, my guess is that there's something about how you expect to feel that's in relation to that.
    • H: No, that makes sense, that feels true. Yeah, there is this feeling of... when you do that, that's really the end, that's the final...
      • [I'm lost...? Later: Ohhhh that's the end of the previous relationship, got it]
    • M: Wow... Oh! It's maybe something like, you've been scheduling dates without accounting for how that will feel in relation to the breakup.
    • H: Mhm, yes. And again, that seems obvious now, but...
    • M: Cool. Well, it sounds like maybe this move is going to look a bit different, and is in some sense less needed, but still beautiful and worthwhile to make some form of it...
    • The date-canceller part was like, "I don't trust that you're taking everything into account when scheduling these dates." And you said, "so now the other part is listening." And implicit in the fact that it's listening, is some respect or regard for the other part, as opposed to "your reasons don't matter," which was there before.
    • Wanting to make sure the date-canceller part can experience that same relief of, "I can have my reality."
      • [Wait, did you mean you want the date-scheduler to have that relief...?]
    • H: Exactly. (long pause)
    • Every time that I get to the point of, "I can have my reality," there is a relief.
      • Bessel van der Kolk quote re: trauma...
        • "Healing from trauma amounts to learning that it's okay to know what you know and feel what you feel"
    • M: Yeah. People have no idea the extent to which so much of human conversation is conducted in a way that is saying, "No, you don't get to have your reality," both internally and interpersonally. It's near constant, and it's such a basic thing that it doesn't even occur to us usually how important it is to say, "You can have your reality. It's different from mine, and you can have it."
      • [Well, of course - because absent heterogeneous coherence, you have to have either homogenous coherence, or heterogeneous IN-coherence! Like either one of us has to lose, or we both lose the ability to make sense together -- if there's not this multiperspectival / parallax move available. Postmodern relativism one of failure modes of heterogeneous incoherence... becomes useless! "You can have your reality, it's different from mine, and you can have it" -- could end up as a standoff]
    • And that's in part because we don't trust that others are going to let us have our reality. But then one of the most self-grounding moves can be saying, "I've got a different reality, but also I respect that you've got yours."
    • And I'm still learning to do that myself, both internally and with other people. Literally just yesterday, someone said a thing to me, and I said, "That's not how I see it!" And ten seconds later I was like, ahhh, what was that? But that comes from the fear that I'm going to have to negate my reality!
    • I'm afraid that my left eye will really convince the right eye that the finger really is on the other side of the camera.
    • This is why I'm seriously wondering if it's worth having a fractional pronoun.
    • So, you've got a date scheduled for this Saturday.
    • H: Yes
    • M: How does that sit now?
    • H: You know, it's natural. That's how it feels. At the same time, there is the part that was previously cancelling the thing, "Ok, just don't forget me. Consider what it's going to mean to your previous relationship." And the other part's not saying now, "I don't care." It's saying, "Yeah, okay, let's do that. Let's see how it goes." Which is interesting.
    • I still have that worry, I still think about that, consider that.
    • M: The two parts haven't merged. They're still bringing different...
    • H: Exactly. But there is no, "I'm going to stop that, I'm going to stop you," as before.
    • M: Mhm! Both now and in that moment, in the days coming up to the date - which I'm sure will still feel like something. One thing you could do, is you could now ask yourself... because it might not be this part... it sounds like this part is standing up for some other part, there's a kind of mediator quality. Ask your whole system, what do we need to do to be ready for this date, emotionally? Is there more letting go that needs to happen, in relation to the former partner? I could imagine somebody going to a bridge where they had a date, and dropping something into the water - that's just one example.
      • [I like the ritual suggestion!]
    • Saying to your system, "whatever is wanted here, let's do it!" And maybe you can't do that thing before this Saturday, and maybe you need to cancel Saturday's date, but now you're oriented to a process rather than just an oscillation.
    • The other thing you could do is invite this part that was previously cancelling the date, can you speak up first? Can we talk about this, before cancelling the date?
      • [49 min: "Malcolm try not to shout" lolllll]
    • H: It's the same thing, there's this need for talking again, have this conversation again, listen again. It's different because, before the scheduler didn't care. And now it understands, maybe he wants to cancel again, this is fine, but let's have the conversation. At the same time, it respects, maybe it's not the time for the other part and it wants to cancel again.
    • M: Wow!
    • H: Mhm. Yeah, there's a huge shift.
    • M: Well, that's pretty cool. I've used this technique w/ other people 3 or 4 times now, and it works way better than I was expecting
    • H: That was unbelievable for me. It feels really magical. And I've had some experience with parts work... was never so impactful, so fast, so direct as that.
    • M: Cool. [discussing use of video & transcript]
    • M: Oh! You said you tried to do this on your own... I'm curious where you got stuck?
    • H: I got stuck at the beginning, really. I could sense these two parts, but I couldn't even make them talk to each other.
    • M [talking about an experience of trying to self-facilitate, calling a friend, wondering if there's a way to scaffold self-facilitation with writing prompts or an app]
    • M [there's another thing that might come up with a part distrusting this whole practice itself]