When one has obsessive-compulsive traits it is sometimes interesting to use the technique of introspection when a crazy thought enters one’s head.
Recall the statement that o-c is quite a severe type of neurosis which
in some respects resembles a psychosis rather than a neurosis. This is because the relationship with reality might be rather compromised in some types
of o-c thinking.
For example the grasp of the probability of some event, or perhaps of the appropriate behaviour to adopt in states of extreme improbability.
Such events are often events which are consciously feared, but possibly desired at an unconscious level, e.g. desires to harm a loved one. Such desires
often cause an idea of harming the person to pop into ones head, an idea which is obnoxious to the person and worrying to him.
For example the probability that the Vim the housewife uses to clean the grill will fall onto the toaster, get onto her husband’s toast and kill him is
vanishingly small, but she still worries about the possibility, (and cannot be reasoned with)
Another example of this seems to be where the distinction between symbol and referent is not clear. As with a normal dreamer, a psychotic, a very young
child, an o-c case
if the person feels his hands are dirty, this is not merely a symbol
for guilt but guilt itself.
The remedy, to wash one’s hands, is more than a symbol for removing one’s guilt but an action which perhaps may actually remove the guilt itself.
The idea is never whole-hearted; the unrealistic barely conscious ideation struggles with the realistic ideation.
Since the o-c neurotic is not fully convinced of the efficacy of his remedial, ‘symbolic’ actions or rituals he is condemned to repeat and repeat.
1. About 1.6.09
The apartment in Mahasarakham
I drop a plastic clip sock drying thing and then think I might
put it down on a cupboard shelf with some ‘good’ things, e.g.
a foot bike/motorcycle tyre pump, but hesitate thinking that any
break or damage in the socks dryer might spread by contact, (or
proximity?) to the foot pump etc.!!!
The quality or state of brokenness might be transferred to another
object by contact
Somewhat like a contagious disease, or state of dirtiness, or wetness
etc. which can be so transferred
This might be an example of reification, a tendency which everyone is
liable to. So Woodworth and Schlosberg warn against this in psychology, when they say we should not talk about memory,
(a noun, representing a thing), but about remembering, (a verb, representing a mental process), not about intelligence,
but about behaving intelligently, (an adverb, describing a way of behaving) etc
But in languages the situation seems to be reversed, first is the ???? and only then comes the ???? as represented by
for abstract nouns add -ness, -hood,
sometimes -t -? -ce etc
for the abstract nouns of mental action add kwaam---
for the abstract nouns of other types add kan---
One thinks that the more complex the idea the more complex the linguistic expression is.
krank = ill
geist = mind, spirit soul, etc
haus = house, building etc
so we get
geisteskrankenhaus = lunatic asylum
(In many of my essays there are perhaps as many questions as answers. But at least this is a start, without questions there are no answers,
and without the right questions we don’t get the right answers) Moreover as in art the viewer should do some of the work!
2. Many dates
If one of my ‘precious things’ gets inadvertently knocked or dropped
I repeat the event.
If I do it now and no damage is done to the item, I see nothing wrong with it,
then it didn’t get damaged the first time
Compare this with the hyperactive little black s.l.d. boy at WW.
On one occasion he hit himself on the corner of his desk as he was leaving it.
He goes back to repeat the event, once or twice, to try to duplicate or triplicate the event.
2. “I’m OK on this second or third occasion so I was OK before”, (not that this was a conscious verbalised idea, the boy was non-verbal, s.l.d.
More crazy yet would be-:-
“What I did made [me know that] the thing [is] OK now”
“[If] what was done just now [did not harm the thing so the similar/same thing that was done before] did not harm the thing then”
In an obsessive compulsive ritual, e.g. counting up to a certain number while washing the hands, if the patient is distracted, so was not paying full
attention to the process, did not have full consciousness of what he was doing, then he will feel he must start again for the whole thing to be effective.
Similarly with checking that one still has all ones credit/debit cards in ones wallet after using a card to get money from an ATM machine.
Compare this with the little black imbecile boy knocking his leg against his desk as he rushes away out of his chair. He goes back to do it again,
but this time to be fully conscious of the event.
To be fully conscious and aware of an event, an activity you carry out, is to be in control of it. So by being conscious of doing something brings it into
We saw how important a feeling of control is, in the case of Helen P., a little slightly spastic s.l.d. girl. With a pad type switch she was delighted
in the unaccustomed control it gave her over a particular class of environmental event, the turning on of her music player.
She seemed to be just as delighted when switching it off, as in switching it on!
Ordinarily we have no control over events of which we are not directly conscious e.g. heart rate, blood pressure etc.
(Apart from yogic masters etc.)
We can control events/processes of which we are conscious – about which we get conscious sensory/perceptual feedback, e.g. breathing,
talking, walking etc.
Even these can drop out of full consciousness as they become habitual and over-practised, e.g. riding a bicycle, swimming, driving a car etc.
As a baby develops he achieves more and more conscious control of the movements of his body, from eyes and head, to arms and hands,
to trunk, to legs and feet.
a. cephalo --> caudal
b. central --> distal
For similar stuff look at :-
Covering the Eyes