Читать книгу Psychological Problems and Their Big Deceptions - David W. Shave - Страница 9

Chapter Three

How We Gain Emotional Strength

Stress and emotional strength are comparable to physical hardships and physical strength. Although a flight of stairs may not be a physical hardship for most people, some people lack the physical strength to be able to climb a flight of stairs. People, with a high level of physical strength, might be able to run up several flights of stairs, two stairs at a time, and not experience it at all as a physical hardship. If people, who couldn’t negotiate the stairs at one time, build up their physical strength, those stairs may no longer be a physical hardship. The reverse is that if people don’t keep up their physical strength, physical hardships for them may increase in number and be more difficult to negotiate when encountered. That’s analogous to stress and emotional strength. If we can build up our emotional strength, we will encounter less situations that we would consciously, or unconsciously, perceive as stressful, and those that we do encounter will be experienced as less stressful. With enough emotional strength, what others might think would be very stressful, may not be experienced as such by us. If we have little emotional strength, what others might feel is not a stressful situation, may be for us a very stressful situation. Because of this, others might look upon us as being “weak,” which is to say lacking in emotional strength. Perhaps why one soldier can’t make it through basic training without becoming a psychiatric casualty, and another soldier can go through basic training, as well as intense combat later, without becoming a psychiatric casualty, depends not only on the amount of actual stress there is, but also on how much emotional strength each soldier has at the time. That emotional strength may be a major factor in determining the amount of consciously, or only unconsciously, perceived stress that there is for the soldier.

If we were to look at the feelings necessary for emotional strength, we would find feelings about which we’ve already become familiar. For instance, we might find feelings of being emotionally attached to others. With those feelings, we’re less likely to feel “separated,” “isolated,” or “alone,” which aren’t conducive to emotional strength. We might find a high degree of those worry-free “good” feelings that everything is, and will be all right in every way, that we’ll avoid misfortune, and that good things are coming, which are feelings that can only come from meeting well our basic emotional need. It’s from feelings like these that our secondary feelings of self-confidence, optimism, and expected good luck arise that are essential for emotional strength. With emotional strength, we might find feelings of being safe, secure, and protected, in spite of the adverse reality we might have. There might even be feelings that we are invincible, that we aren’t subject to being hurt, and that we know everything we need to know. The less our basic emotional need is met, the less we have of these feelings. How much emotional strength we’ll have at any one time, will always be a direct result of how much of our basic emotional need is being met. The more we can recognizably, or unrecognizably, meet our basic emotional need, the more capable we’ll be in contending with the adversities of our reality and resolving our emotional problems, whatever they might be, that might appear to us as directly resulting from those adversities. Insufficiently meeting our basic emotional need, for whatever reason, will produce a lessened amount of emotional strength, and a lessened amount of self-confidence, optimism and anticipated good luck. We’ll be less capable of contending with the adversities of our reality. We don’t “learn” to have more emotional strength, as people might erroneously believe. We emotionally gain it by meeting better our basic emotional need, which we know is experiencing that which is pleasurable to us.

Like daily physical exercise builds physical strength, daily meeting well our basic emotional need builds emotional strength, self-confidence, and optimism. The easiest way we can do this is taking time for involving ourselves in talking with our friends. How daily talking can build emotional strength, by meeting well our basic emotional need, was well exemplified by a combat veteran who had a most remarkable experience of enduring severe combat conditions without becoming a psychiatric casualty. He was a highly decorated WW2 veteran who had spent much time in a frontline infantry squad. With this squad, he was frequently ordered to go on night patrol in order to determine the map co-ordinates where the enemy was concentrated. He told me how he could kill an enemy soldier at night without that person uttering a sound. When I asked if he felt his job was extremely stressful, knowing that he, himself, would have been similarly killed if he were discovered first by the enemy, he told me he never once felt his night patrols were more stressful than he could handle. He said, “I felt I was just doing my job like everyone else in my squad was doing.” He even admitted that at times he took pleasure in his work, for he told me that once they had located where the enemy armor was, the map co-ordinates would then be conveyed to the artillery, and “the next morning they would blow the place to Hell, and that made me feel good knowing it was because of me and my buddies that made it all possible.”

This person’s talking within his squad, and the resulting camaraderie, met well his basic emotional need even though the circumstances of his army life on the front lines would seem so unimaginably frustrating to anyone’s basic emotional need. Severely deprived of the comforts of home, as he was on the front lines, separated by thousands of miles from his loved ones, and living in constant danger, he and his squad contended very well with the stress they were under. He admitted they were a “cocky” bunch that, together, felt they could handle anything night or day, as well, if not better, than any other infantry squad “on the line.” What might have appeared as massive frustrations of anyone’s basic emotional need, weren’t perceived as such. How that could only be, was because of the great amount of emotional strength these soldiers developed. Their on-going talking within their squad gave them a high level of emotional strength to contend with adversities that one would think would greatly increase anyone’s unmet basic emotional need. No one in their squad had any earlier army training in “building confidence,” “developing psychological coping skills,” “learning stress management,” “building resilience,” or “learning to avoid becoming a psychiatric casualty.” They accomplished what they did in combat with their emotional strength, which came from the talking they did with each other. Without that resulting high level of emotional strength that these soldiers had, they wouldn’t have been able to exist without developing disabling emotional problems of one kind or another. The talking these soldiers did with each other created large emotional attachments, recognizably bonding them closely with each other, and building emotional strength. Why their emotional attachments were large ones was because their interpersonal relationship sphere for meeting their basic emotional need was pretty much limited to the infantry squad, and to no one else. This wasn’t a reality situation one commonly finds in civilian life where interpersonal relationship spheres are usually larger, so that one can better spread out the meeting of the basic emotional need, and the getting rid of stored anger. When this person left the service, he didn’t become involved in any extended talking with friends, like he had been in his infantry squad, for he told me he didn’t have the time, and that things were often such between his wife and him that weren’t always conducive to doing much talking with each other. For him, it was like discontinuing any daily physical exercising because of not having the inclination, the time, the means, or the opportunities for it, and having, as a direct result, a dramatic decrease in physical strength.

The reason this veteran came to see me was because he had lost that high level of emotional strength that he had on the front lines when he was daily engaged in talking with his buddies. When I first saw him, he had a job at a nearby latex plant making women’s pantyhose and came to see me because of the stress he was feeling in his job. He got over that stress by meeting a lot of what was unmet of his basic emotional need in the extended talking he did with me. There was no teaching him how to handle stress, or how to build “resilience,” or having him “learn coping skills.” Just getting him to talk was all that was necessary for him to regain his emotional strength, because with that talking and my listening, he met much of what was unmet of his basic emotional need. With a much better met basic emotional need, resulting in more emotional strength, what had seemed so stressful before at the pantyhose factory, no longer was. What made the difference was the amount of emotional strength he now had. I never had to tell him that. When he discontinued with me, he felt he knew what the reason was that he no longer felt stress at work. He told me that things had changed at the plant, and there was no longer the stress that there was before. But it could have been a lot more that his perception of stress had changed with his gaining more emotional strength from his talking to me, so that what he had previously seen as so stressful was no longer seen as such, and a lot less that things had really changed at his plant. If it were more this “change of perception,” and less the reality of his work situation, his explanation might have been a little like saying that a flight of stairs you couldn’t go up before with less physical strength, that you now can go up with no difficulty with more physical strength, is because the flight of stairs became shorter and less steep.

One can see the same beneficial results from talking, in people who have very stressful jobs in civilian life. Firemen, policemen, paramedics, and people that work in hospital emergency rooms, are just a few of the great number of people who have very stressful jobs. These people can handle the stress of their jobs easier when they have opportunity to regularly engage in talking with those with whom they work. Mothers, who don’t work outside their homes, but who have to contend with the sustained stress of raising multiple children, handle that stress better when they have opportunity to be involved in regularly occurring talking with other mothers, which can come about for any reason to get together to talk. By talking with others, many of these people, who have stressful jobs of one kind or another, feel emotionally close to those with whom they talk regularly. They develop that same “band of brothers” feeling that is characteristic of any closely-knit infantry squad in combat, regardless of what side of the war the squad is on. It’s the on-going talking of people that can meet what might be uncomfortably unmet of their basic emotional need that increases their emotional strength. What stresses they might then encounter are less likely to be seen as insurmountable, or that they have to be faced alone. Stresses, like losses, disappointments, “hurts,” or pain, seem to decrease in size as one’s basic emotional need is better met. With enough of one’s basic emotional need being met, what might have been perceived as a major stress, from less emotional strength, may no longer be seen as such. As a result of their talking, people feel better about themselves, about their situations in which they work, and about things in general, and they’re more optimistic about their future. Whether they are working at home as a housewife and mother, or in some job outside the home, or even in some combat zone, people handle stress better when they’re involved in talking with others on a regular basis. They handle stress better from decreased perceptions of stress, from building emotional strength, from meeting better their basic emotional need, and not by learning “coping skills,” or “stress management,” or “how to gain resilience,” as many mental health professionals might tell us, nor by any advice on how to avoid becoming a psychiatric casualty. It’s the continued involvement in talking that emotionally does it.

Becoming involved in group talking often comes about from the extended talking of two people. It is similar to the progression away from over-dependency, to emotional maturity, that we earlier saw as an infant becomes older, where both the meeting of the basic emotional need and the expression of anger, become more diffusely accomplished and therefore more unrecognizable. People, who have very stressful jobs, have often told me that their extended talking with others made the performance of their jobs less stressful. It wasn’t what they talked about, they told me, but it was the talking that they enjoyed, which met well their basic emotional need. Mothers have frequently told me that when they were regularly taking time to talk with their “girl friends,” whatever might have been stressing them now didn’t seem as great. Like flights of stairs looking “shorter and less steep,” or less of a hardship with more physical strength, what might have looked very stressful or “hurtful” to someone else, wasn’t seen by them as so stressful or “hurtful” with increased emotional strength from the talking they did. They told me that they didn’t have to talk about what was stressing them, to feel a relief from that stress. It was their enjoyable talking and laughing together that seemed to diminish their perception of stress where-ever it was focused.

What closely-knits any group together, so that no one in the group feels alone, are “part”-oriented emotional attachments that come about from the continued talking that members of the group do. “Part”-oriented emotional attachments are the result of an unconscious part of a person, who is talking to a perceived listener, emotionally attaching to an unconsciously perceived “good” part of that listener. That unconsciously perceived “good” part of a listening person provides a little bit of pleasure and that then meets a little bit of what was unmet of one’s basic emotional need. Group talking is more advantageous than one-to-one talking, in that the expression of anger in the talking of a closely-knit group, where there are strong “part”-oriented emotional attachments, is more easily facilitated. Perceptions of stress, disappointment, or pain are frustrations of one’s basic emotional need that result in more of a need to get rid of the anger that those frustrations generate. The greater is a person’s perception of any stress, disappointment, or pain, the greater will be the frustration of the basic emotional need, and the greater will be the amount of resulting anger. Storing up an increasing amount of anger in a person depletes that person’s emotional strength. Storing up anger, and increasing one’s unmet basic emotional need, are the two reasons that emotional strength is diminished. Diminished emotional strength will then exaggerate any later frustration of the basic emotional need. More anger then results from any perceived frustration of the basic emotional need! If one is continually exposed to whatever might be stressful, disappointing, or painful to that person, there’s more of a need to be getting rid of anger on a regular basis, rather than storing it within one’s unconscious, where it will deplete emotional strength still further. There is also more of a need to meet what is unmet of that person’s basic emotional need. Extended talking is the easiest remedy for any experienced form of perceived stress, disappointment, or discomfort because of what it unconsciously accomplishes. It can subtly meet what’s unmet of the basic emotional need, while just as subtly, it can get rid of stored anger, and this increases emotional strength, which will then decrease any now or later perceived stress from any cause.

A WW2 combat veteran told me that he was lying helmet to helmet with another soldier from his infantry squad in a ditch just wide enough for a person to lie in it, but long enough for two persons, during a most intense artillery barrage with deadly shrapnel whizzing by. He told me that he noticed his hands trembled like a leaf during the barrage but when he engaged in some talking with the soldier whose helmet touched his, he noticed his hands didn’t tremble at all and he felt less afraid of the shelling. As long as the two of them kept talking, his hands didn’t tremble. As soon as they stopped talking, his hands would begin to uncontrollably tremble.

Better than one-to-one talking, group talking more easily allows anger to be expressed and accepted by other group members. Since the more stored anger one has, the more stress one will perceive, because there is less emotional strength from a bigger unmet basic emotional need, group talking more easily lowers the level of stored anger, than any one-to-one talking. Even when the anger is being expressed to a member in a closely-knit group in a recognizable way, it’s more easily accepted, and particularly so, if it is humorously done and makes everyone laugh. Anger expressed this way is often supported by all the others in the group when these others in turn, humorously express their own recognizable anger which continues the enjoyable entertainment that meets well what might have been unmet of their basic emotional need. The person, to whom the anger is recognizably directed, is more likely to laugh along with the others, over the anger being humorously expressed, and enjoying being the center of attention of the group. Having recognizable anger being humorously expressed this way more often meets, rather than frustrates, the recipient’s basic emotional need, when that recipient has a high degree of emotional strength. Being temporarily “center stage,” as the focus of recognizably expressed anger, and enjoying the group laughter it provokes, can meet well what might be unmet of these people’s basic emotional needs. We can see the same thing in any closely-knit group where much talking, joking, and “ribbing” is taking place. It’s the shared laughter that meets exceptionally well the basic emotional need of the members of a group. Mutually shared enjoyment in humorously expressing recognizable anger, where the basic emotional need is continuing to be well met in an obvious way, while recently stored anger is being diminished, is a prominent characteristic of any closely-knit group.

With the extended talking that they do, members of a closely-knit group don’t have to store up as much anger so that it doesn’t accumulate as much within a person’s unconscious as it too easily can do in a person not involved in daily talking. Daily talking, and especially daily group talking, can get rid of uncomfortable levels of recently stored anger so that it doesn’t reach high levels in any one person as it easily can do with daily accumulations of it, without a means to decrease it. Directly expressed recognizable anger that is humorously done in a closely-knit group, is a popular means to express anger. One doesn’t have to be careful of what one says, as a person might feel in any one-to-one talking where the meeting of the basic emotional need is being more concentrated in one source. In one-to-one talking, recognizably expressed anger to the listener is rarely a laughing matter like it often is in the talking of a closely-knit group. In group talking, there may be many equated sources present for unconsciously meeting the basic emotional need on a “part”-oriented basis amongst the members of the group, so that there is less reluctance to express anger even if it is done so in a recognizable way, and particularly when it makes everyone laugh. This is just what meets the basic emotional need so well, and keeps recently stored anger in the unconscious at low levels in a closely-knit infantry squad in combat, in spite of an immensely adverse reality. An infantry squad’s members can be getting rid of anger almost as fast as it is being formed, not only in a very recognizable way with what they angrily do to the enemy in combat, but also with their extended talking with each other, when they have opportunity to do so. But they may not be able to do either with overwhelming enemy forces. Neither can they when they are subjected to continuing physical or mental exhaustion, or any physical illness that greatly diminishes their ability to express recognizable anger in battle, or to express both recognizable and unrecognizable anger in their extended talking with buddies. Not being able on a regular basis to express anger, in any way it can be done, and not being able to sufficiently meet one’s basic emotional need enough to be emotionally comfortable, can easily lead to becoming a psychiatric casualty from too little emotional strength. An insufficiently met basic emotional need, and too much stored anger, result in inadequate levels of emotional strength and a wide variety of possible resulting emotional problems.

With a more adequately met basic emotional need and less stored anger, as we can have by regularly engaging in the talking of a group of our own choosing, any stressful, disappointing, or hurtful event will be coped with better than what it would be with an inadequately met basic emotional need, from not enough time in talking. To say that coping better is a result of learning “coping skills,” rather than from a high level of emotional strength, is analogous to someone saying that you have to learn to run up a flight of stairs with less effort. It’s analogous to someone saying you have to learn to think better of yourself if you have been feeling “down” on yourself. Thinking better of yourself, like having a better self-image, isn’t learned, like many people might have us believe. Thinking better of yourself, or having a better self-image, which is feeling more acceptable about yourself, follows meeting better your basic emotional need. You have a better self-image, and more optimism, with a better met basic emotional need. Unless you meet better your basic emotional need, you won’t think better of yourself by any learning, and you won’t be optimistic. But when you do meet better your basic emotional need, which you might easily do in an unrecognizable way, and you do appear to think better of yourself, and you are more optimistic, it may then appear as though you’ve “learned” to do this, and that’s a big deception. We build emotional strength; we think better of ourselves; and we are more optimistic, a lot less by any learning, and a lot more by the hidden emotional process of meeting more of what is unmet of our basic emotional need, and by decreasing the stored anger we have. It’s our increased emotional strength that can decrease our perception of any stress, disappointment, loss, or pain. With diminished emotional strength, those perceptions can be greatly exaggerated and may then become a cause for opioid addiction or alcoholism.

Rationalizing a high level of emotional strength produces another big deception. When I asked that highly decorated combat veteran why he didn’t feel terror every day he was on the front lines, he told me it was because of his carrying a “lucky” silver dollar that his mother had given him. Other combat soldiers have told me they always carried into combat a “lucky something,” such as a small photo of their sweetheart, a protective charm, a small Bible, or a religious medal. Some have told me they always said a certain prayer when they entered battle. One combat veteran told me that he and his three infantry squad buddies tore a dollar bill into four equal parts with each person taking a part which was always carried into battle. All these talismans that were carried into combat, were each symbolic of relationships that had met well their basic emotional need which might remind us of small children closely carrying their comforting “blankies,” or favorite stuffed toy animals wherever they go. What these children want carried with them are predicate-equated with relationships, and parts of relationships, that have met well their basic emotional need. Special relationships, and the very personal things the soldiers carried into battle, were also unconsciously predicate-equated, and because of this, keeping those things close to them could meet better their basic emotional need. Having a well met basic emotional need, these soldiers felt less fear of combat, perceived less stress, and were more confident and optimistic of any combat outcome. Combat soldiers would then later attribute their good fortune in not having been killed, wounded, or a psychiatric casualty, to these symbolic things they carried with them that were predicate-equated with what had met well their basic emotional need in the past, including any prayer. But their feeling before battle of being well protected from harm, and that accompanying optimistic feeling that everything will be all right, came from that increased emotional strength they had, which had recently arisen from a more well-met basic emotional need. It’s the more well-met basic emotional need that provided the emotional strength for combat. Whatever else these soldiers might have given as a reason for emotionally doing so well in combat could have been more of a deception, even if it might have sounded very believable.

If we enhance the build-up of our emotional strength by engaging more in re-occurring group talking, under the guise of some reality reason to get together on a regular basis with friends, we too can contend better with any frustration of our basic emotional need. Our continuing to engage in re-occurring group talking can meet more of our basic emotional need when our basic emotional need is continually being frustrated by the circumstances of our reality. We see this substantiated best with soldiers contending with the immense stress of continued combat who have opportunity for extended talking on the squad level, as opposed to soldiers who don’t have opportunity for such talking because of the circumstances of their combat. A wounded soldier contends better with his wound when he has opportunity to talk with a buddy. Combat circumstances can greatly vary in presenting opportunities for soldiers to sit around and talk. When there’s no time for talk, and more intense combat, we can expect higher psychiatric casualty rates. With a better met basic emotional need from opportunities to talk with a group of friends, and less stored anger, we, like combat soldiers, can handle better any immense sudden frustration of our basic emotional need that might come about as a very recognizable major traumatic event. Just as importantly, we can cope much better with the stress and anxiety that might come about more as a result of unrecognized unconscious “part”-oriented frustrations of our basic emotional need, the accumulated amount of which might easily surpass that about which a person might have to cope from a single recognizable major traumatic event. Perhaps this is why soldiers not exposed to any combat, can show the very same psychiatric symptoms as soldiers who are involved in combat. The soldiers not exposed to combat, can attain the same amount of an unmet basic emotional need and the same amount of stored anger, as a soldier exposed to combat, by gradually accumulating those levels on an unrecognized “part”-oriented basis with no good means available to lower those levels. Without adequate means to lower those amounts, they could accumulate larger amounts than a soldier engaged in combat, or even wounded in combat, but who has opportunity for talking with buddies.

Without having sufficient emotional strength, and having a build-up of stored anger from unrecognized unconscious “part”-oriented frustrations, we can easily become a psychiatric casualty without our having to experience any recognizable major traumatic event. If we’re not adequately meeting our basic emotional need, as we may not be when we’re not involved enough in extended talking with others, we can become overwhelmed by stresses that other people might see as trivial. But what might appear to others as trivial can wear us down when it depletes our emotional strength by slowly increasing our unmet basic emotional need and increasing our stored anger, when we don’t have opportunity to decrease our unmet basic emotional need and our stored anger. We can gradually attain very uncomfortable levels of both an unmet basic emotional need and stored anger. We don’t need to experience the stresses of combat to appear emotionally “shell-shocked.” With enough of an unmet basic emotional need, too much stored anger, and a resulting depletion of our emotional strength, we can easily become a “psychiatric casualty” without having been exposed to any recognized traumatic event. With little or no extended talking, we could show the same psychiatric symptoms that a person might show from a single recognizable major frustration of the basic emotional need. We can appear as having a “very bad case of nerves” from a succession of unrecognized, as well as seemingly trivial frustrations of our basic emotional need, that over time produces too much of an unmet basic emotional need and too much accumulated stored anger that then depletes our emotional strength. It might then appear to mental health professionals that we didn’t have sufficient “learning of coping skills,” or sufficient “learning to be resilient,” when it’s not a deficiency in “learning.” It’s the deficiency in our emotional strength! When that combat veteran first came to see me, he looked like he had been “shell-shocked” at the pantyhose factory. As he put it when I first saw him, “My nerves are shot to Hell!” which is just another way of his saying, “I’ve depleted my emotional strength.” The irony was that his nerves were “shot to Hell” at the pantyhose factory, and they never were “shot to Hell” in combat! It was the level of emotional strength he had that made the difference. He had no buddies with whom to talk at the pantyhose factory, like he did while in combat. In understanding this, we can see the big deception in explanations for becoming a psychiatric casualty from combat that are solely based on a lack of certain genes, or because of “invisible injuries” to the brain. We can also see a big deception with researchers telling us that an optimistic feeling that everything will be all right originates in certain parts of the brain, because certain areas of the brain light up with neuro-imaging in optimistic people, as opposed to not lighting up in pessimistic people. That’s just more “kabuki psychology.” It’s in the brain’s mind where those optimistic feelings arise, not the brain’s specific parts that only secondarily may light up on neuro-imaging!

Traumatic events do happen to all us for they are a part of life. Life is such that some days will be “good” days, when more of our basic emotional need is being met, and some days will be “bad” days when more of our basic emotional need is being frustrated. Many traumatic events are unavoidable, like the loss to death of good friends and cherished relatives, which will always be major frustrations of our basic emotional need even if we might feel they have gone on to some “perfect place.” By meeting well our basic emotional need through group talking, we can contend better with any misfortune. Any traumatic event can later be more easily put behind us when we continue to be involved in group talking. With an inadequate meeting of our basic emotional need, too much stored anger, and too little emotional strength, any traumatic event will appear magnified to us, and appear more psychologically disabling. The traumatic event most likely won’t appear as later put behind us if we’re not adequately meeting our basic emotional need. A remembered traumatic event of the distant past might superficially appear as continuing to be an emotional problem, when it may not be at all. The remembered event (like someone’s remembered combat years ago) may hide the real problem that we’re not currently meeting our basic emotional need adequately enough to be emotionally comfortable, and not currently getting rid of our recently accumulated anger, but are storing too much of it in that now remembered traumatic event of the distant past.

Our high level of an unmet basic emotional need that we might have now, which might have been unrecognizably engendered from recently experiencing multiple small frustrations where we didn’t have the means or opportunities to lower that level, can become equated in our unconscious, by some commonly shared predicate, as we saw in the last chapter, to a distantly past time in our lives when our basic emotional need was recognizably unmet to a similar high degree from a single major traumatic event. It’s the unrecognized situation we currently have, where we have a very uncomfortably unmet basic emotional need, and that well recognized major traumatic event of our distant past, that temporarily might have given us at that distant time, a similar level of an unmet basic emotional need, that initiates the unconscious equating. The commonly shared predicate, that equates that major well-remembered traumatic event of our distant past, and the unrecognized situation we currently have where our basic emotional need is similarly unmet, might be, “feeling very emotionally uncomfortable,” “feeling overwhelmed by stress,” “feeling hopeless,” “feeling pain,” or any other feeling shared in common by that major traumatic event of our distant past, and by our current situation. We could then erroneously attribute the feelings we have now, as being entirely due to the now remembered traumatic event of our distant past, which would be a big deception. An example of this is a man, sexually abused as a child by his parish priest, and who later very uncomfortably remembers that past time when, for whatever recognized and unrecognized combination of reasons, he again becomes emotionally uncomfortable to a similar level. He may then feel his now being so emotionally uncomfortable is due to his being sexually abused by a priest many years ago, when it’s not! But it can make a very good “logical-sounding” rationalization for currently being emotionally uncomfortable that many people would readily accept.

It isn’t necessary for us to have a recognizable single traumatic event in the present, to equate with a recognizable single traumatic event of our distant past. What can be equated are two different times where we have the same level of an unmet met basic emotional need, and the same level of stored anger. One from a very recognizable time of our distant past, and the other from what we may have unrecognizably accumulated recently. The unconscious predicate-equating is the very reason that any long past traumatic event can then come out of our subconscious and become remembered, and where that same traumatic event may now appear in recurrent thoughts and dreams. It’s the unconscious predicate-equating that allows us to unconsciously store recently engendered anger in a dislike of our distant past, that then can cause us to be more emotionally uncomfortable as though from that remembered dislike. Since what has made us so very emotionally uncomfortable in the present may be unrecognizable to us because of it being a result of a gradual accumulation of an uncomfortable level of both an unmet basic emotional need, and the stored anger from “part”-oriented frustrations of our basic emotional need, we can’t logically talk about the specific causes of that accumulation. We may want to talk about that equated long past traumatic event as though that’s the very reason for our currently being so emotionally uncomfortable. What we might present in regard to that long past traumatic event of our past, as a cause for our now being so emotionally uncomfortable, is a faulty conclusion.

What might be logically presented as a cause for our now being emotionally uncomfortable, as due to some event of our distant past, involves the same predicate-equating process that can occur when our basic emotional need is currently being exceptionally well met, and a memory of a very pleasant relationship, experience, or situation of the distant past seems to come recurrently to mind. Our remembered very pleasant event from our distant past, when our basic emotional need was exceptionally well met, and the very pleasant situation of our having our basic emotional need exceptionally well met now, can become equated. What equates the two might be the predicate “making me exceptionally happy,” or any similar feeling. Our basic emotional need being exceptionally well met now, may not be from our experiencing in the present a single very pleasant recognizable event, but rather may be due to an unrecognized gradual accumulation of meeting exceptionally well, our basic emotional need on the unconscious level, from multiple parts of current pleasurable relationships, experiences, and situations. Our currently accumulating an exceptionally well met basic emotional need, on an unrecognized “part”-oriented basis, from the circumstances we currently have, may bring to mind, by predicate-equating, a recognizable distantly past very pleasurable experience from our subconscious which had a similar level of happiness. It would be erroneous for us to conclude that the well-remembered pleasurable event of the past is the very reason we feel so good now, and the very reason we may be having pleasant recurrent thoughts and pleasant dreams of that distantly past happy time. The only reason we feel so happy now is because our basic emotional need is being so well met now. It’s not at all because of that long past pleasurable event, or any of those similarly equated pleasant things, people, experiences, or situations of the distant past that may now be recurrently coming into our thoughts and dreams, by unconscious predicate-equating.

When our basic emotional need is currently being exceptionally well met, there may be “triggers” in what we might observe of our reality, that seemingly are able to bring to mind pleasant memories of a single very pleasant event that might have met exceptionally well our basic emotional need in the distant past. The “trigger,” whatever it might be, and that pleasant memory of the distant past, become equated in our unconscious mind with our current situation by some commonly shared predicate. That very happy time in our distant past may then be what we might want to enjoyably talk about to our friends as though it is the very reason for our now feeling so happy. Our present state of having our basic emotional need so well met, which might be unrecognizably well met from being predominantly met on a “part”-oriented basis, is made more understandable to us, and to others, by the rationalization we might unconsciously present of the very happy event of the distant past that was recognizably experienced by us at that time. It’s like we’re saying, “This is how and why I’m feeling so happy now so let me tell you all about it,” when it’s not the reason for our feeling so happy now, any more than very unpleasant memories of our distant past would be the reason for our currently feeling so unhappy!

Because a traumatic emotional event is less of a frustration of our basic emotional need, when that need is being adequately met than it is when it is being inadequately met, our extended talking with friends is of great importance. With more emotional strength, from more extended talking with friends, we can be better prepared not only for unexpected emotionally traumatic events we might encounter that we might easily recognize, but can be, just as importantly, also better prepared for any “part”-oriented frustrations of our basic emotional need that won’t be recognized. With a poorly met basic emotional need, unrecognized frustrations of our basic emotional need can become exaggerated in how they are unconsciously experienced, because of our having diminished emotional strength. They become unconsciously perceived as greater frustrations of our basic emotional need than they would be with a better met basic emotional need, which then produces more of an unmet basic emotional need and more resulting stored anger. If we’re not engaged in any extended talking, these frustrations can quickly become an unrecognizable reason for our currently becoming emotionally uncomfortable to a severe degree, or for our developing a severe emotional problem. With greatly decreased emotional strength from this, what might be recognizable trivial frustrations to others, with a more well met basic emotional need, can become major frustrations to us, and an added reason for our becoming more emotionally uncomfortable. Some emotional problems that we might develop won’t be consciously recognized by us as an emotional problem. But these unrecognized emotional problems will also become unconsciously experienced as greater or lesser problems depending on how much emotional strength we currently have.

Coming home from the war in Afghanistan, might be an unexpected stressful event on the unconscious level, where one would expect the reality of the home-coming to be very conducive to meeting well the basic emotional need of the veteran. But for some veterans, the talking that a veteran might do on returning home may not adequately meet that veteran’s basic emotional need, and just as importantly, may not adequately allow getting rid of recently accumulated stored anger from small unrecognized daily frustrations of that need, resulting in insufficient emotional strength. In contrast, veterans, while in the service, with a very adverse reality, but regularly involved in on-going talking with squad buddies, and often expressing recognizable anger in combat, as well as expressing both recognizable and unrecognizable anger in that talking with buddies, might have been adequately meeting their basic emotional need and adequately getting rid of anger so that anger wasn’t excessively stored. What can result for those veterans now at home from war is the exact opposite of what those combat squad members showed, where one would expect that their basic emotional need would be immensely frustrated from having to live in the extremely adverse reality of a combat zone, when it wasn’t. This was because they were meeting so much of that need in their unconscious while getting rid of anger in their extended talking, as well as in their daily expressing anger to the enemy in their combat activities. They weren’t accumulating an increasingly unmet basic emotional need or an increasing amount of stored anger, as they now might at home.

A returning veteran might have an emotional situation like what became evident in WW2, when a replacement soldier, or “repple-depple,” from the army’s replacement depot, or the “repo-depot,” would often have a difficult time fitting in with his newly assigned front line infantry squad. Although a “repple-depple” knew he was now part of the squad, he often didn’t “feel” that he was. The squad members also knew he was now part of the squad, but they too often didn’t “feel” he was. He wasn’t just felt as an “outsider” to the squad. Because he was a replacement for someone who very much had been an “insider,” but because of death or severe wounding, was no longer there, he was often initially felt as an emotionally unacceptable replacement for someone whom they might have felt could never be replaced. Because of this, the emotional attachments weren’t easily formed because any extended talking with the replacement soldier wasn’t likely to occur. It took a while for a replacement soldier to become emotionally accepted by the squad and equally involved in the squad’s extended talking where he could then meet better his basic emotional need and just as importantly, more easily get rid of his stored anger without accumulating it. During that time, the replacement soldier would appear more as a “by-stander” to the group’s talking than a participant. He was a “by-stander” to others who were meeting well their basic emotional need and expressing well their anger. As a result, he was more prone to becoming a psychiatric casualty.

For the returning veteran from combat in Afghanistan, those emotional attachments with those he, or she, had left behind on first entering military service, might not be as strong now, as they might have previously been when the veteran left home. Veterans might “know” without question that they very much do “fit in” on returning home, but they may not “feel” as though they do. Emotional attachments may not have had a chance to be re-established, or strengthened, and that might be because of not enough involvement in extended talking at home. These veterans may be much more emotionally attached on returning home, to their squad buddies left behind. Rather than an active participant of any talking at home, the returning veteran may feel more as a “by-stander.” Not enough time in talking can mean slower emotional re-attachments, less emotional strength, more stored anger, and more emotional problems. With less emotional strength, there’s less ability to emotionally cope with the home situation. Coping with that home situation might involve a majority of unrecognized or trivial frustrations of the basic emotional need that can result in excessively stored anger, after having become exaggerated frustrations to the returning veteran from a lessened amount of emotional strength. We might call it the “repple-depple syndrome of the returning veteran,” who too easily can show a very “bad case of nerves,” where nothing recognizable seems to be the immediate cause, and who may then become a high suicidal risk, as a result of that syndrome. It is these unrecognized exaggerated frustrations of the basic emotional need, from a lessened amount of emotional strength, that are the real “invisible wounds” for the veteran. More talking can heal those “invisible wounds.” This Author has long noted that a person’s change of job, or address, can decrease the opportunity to talk enough with others to maintain a sufficient level of emotional strength and a comfortable level of unexpressed anger from daily recognizable and unrecognizable frustrations of the basic emotional need. As a result, a person can become more prone to becoming emotionally uncomfortable to a severe degree, even to the point of becoming suicidal. The error can then be too easily made by medical doctors and psychologists in believing that the emotional problem that a returning veteran might have, is directly attributed to having been in combat, rather than the induced stress from having had a “change of job” and a “change of address” with an abrupt loss of previous emotional attachments, and opportunities for extended talking that he, or she, might have daily had on active military duty. A sudden change of job and address may explain why a soldier in basic training can quickly become a psychiatric casualty, where he, or she, previously hadn’t been in civilian life. What can result from a change of job, or a change of address, for anybody, is a temporary loss of emotional strength and more stored anger. The remedy for this is meeting better the basic emotional need and getting rid of any uncomfortable amount of stored anger in the unconscious. That remedy can come about with talking more. It doesn’t come from being talked to, or being lectured to, or being, as many veterans have told me, “pumped full of drugs!”

Why people feel that “everything is all right,” or, with an even better met basic emotional need, “everything is more than good enough,” and why they have so many “good” feelings in what to others is a most stressful situation, may have a lot to do with the emotional attachments that are formed with any extended talking, and with the emotional strength gained from meeting well their basic emotional need from that talking. In contrast, why people can feel that “everything isn’t all right,” or why they feel “everything isn’t good enough,” and why they may be experiencing so many “bad” feelings in what other people might feel is a situation that doesn’t appear unpleasant, even if they can’t explain why they have these “bad” feelings, may have a lot to do with insufficient emotional attachments, from insufficient talking, resulting in a lessened amount of emotional strength, and too much stored anger.

People, in unconsciously creating a rationalization for feeling “good,” or feeling “bad,” unconsciously choose the facts of their reality to support the “good” or the “bad” feelings they already have. Those “good” or “bad” feelings often come more from how much their basic emotional need is being met, and its accompanying level of emotional strength, and less from the facts of their reality that people present as to why they feel the way they do. Their “I feel good because …,” or their “I feel bad because .…,” are more likely to be rationalizations for feelings that are arising, not as much, if any at all, from the reality facts that these people might give as causes for their statements, but more from the degree that their basic emotional need is currently being recognizably, and unrecognizably, met. Meeting well our basic emotional need, which can be predominantly done in our unconscious, as it can in our taking time to talk with others, generates those “everything is all right,” and “something good is going to happen to me – it’s only a matter of time,” anxiety-allaying feelings that then can be unconsciously rationalized as though they all have arisen from reality. Because people can only see their reality, they are often at a loss to give any logical sounding reason for feeling so badly, or showing a lack of emotional strength, unless to erroneously say there’s a genetic, or neurological, or a biochemical cause in the brain, or from some traumatic event of the distant past. We aren’t always going to know what is making us emotionally comfortable, or uncomfortable, when these feelings are being currently developed more from “part”-oriented perceptions in our unconscious. In fact, it’s probably more in our unconscious where the predominance of our day-to-day perceptions of what meets and what frustrates our basic emotional need takes place. Since we can’t ascertain what’s going on in our unconscious, like we easily might in our reality, we will tend to attribute any feelings we might have, as arising solely from reality for one reason or another. Our explanations to ourselves and others, for our feelings of being happy or unhappy with life, are more often rationalizations because they don’t address the component of feeling that is coming from our unconscious, which could be the predominant reason for our feeling the way we do. Because what might be engendering “good” or “bad” feelings may be predominantly contributed from our unconscious from unrecognized “part”-oriented meetings, or unrecognized “part”-oriented frustrations, of our basic emotional need, we unconsciously present reality-oriented rationalizations to explain our feeling the way we do.

Whatever we engage in that is enjoyable to us, increases the feeling that our basic emotional need is being better met. This, then, increases our feelings of having more emotional strength. We might theorize that eating what we love to eat can contribute to gaining an increased feeling of emotional strength. Perhaps this is the reason that a prisoner, condemned to death, is often given a “last meal” of what he, or she, likes eating the most. The person might then gain more emotional strength to endure what is awaiting that person. A WW2 combat veteran told me he always knew when a planned bigger than usual battle was about to take place, as he and his outfit would be served an unusually good meal beforehand. People feeling “down,” and feeling as though they have little or no emotional strength, often turn to eating more. Where eating excessively, or eating more “sweets” and desserts, might make a person temporarily feel better, while providing a feeling of increased emotional strength, over-eating is fattening and therefore detrimental to one’s physical health. Drinking alcohol and taking drugs may also be enjoyable and because it is, it can provide a false feeling of having more emotional strength, when in fact the basic emotional need isn’t really more met and a person doesn’t really have more emotional strength! The more people gain of that false feeling by drinking and “drugging,” the more impaired their brain functioning becomes. The advantage of our engaging in talking for meeting better our basic emotional need and increasing our emotional strength, is not only that it’s not going to add unwanted pounds to us, and that it’s not going to impair the functioning of our mind and brain, but it allows us to subtly rid ourselves of repressed anger. With our engaging more in talking, we really can become more emotionally comfortable people while truly having more emotional strength, and less repressed anger!

Having always our basic emotional need very well met isn’t always advantageous to us. Having it frustrated at times may be to our benefit. We have to have our basic emotional need frustrated to some degree, in order to live more comfortably in reality. We learn from the frustrations of our basic emotional need and with that learning we can better avoid much bigger frustrations of that need. We can learn from the mistakes of others that don’t frustrate our basic emotional need, but we learn best from our own mistakes that will frustrate that need. What we learn best makes it easier for us to later avoid greater frustrations. We learn better what’s “really good” to eat from having eaten things that were “really bad” to eat. We can more fully appreciate “heavenly” experiences and situations that meet well our basic emotional need when we’ve earlier experienced some “hellish” ones that might have greatly frustrated our basic emotional need. We can avoid pain better in the present and in the future by having experienced pain in the past. Frustrating our basic emotional need. so that we can later avoid greater frustrations. can be highly advantageous to us, but those lesser frustrations will still produce a degree of anger for us. When that anger is stored in our unconscious, a most fascinating entity develops that can profoundly affect each and every one of us every day that we exist. What that fascinating entity is, we’ll find out in the next chapter.