The paranoid dynamic and mindfulness

Paranoia consists of individuals projecting on to other objects their unconscious desires or motives. There is a certain amount of a paranoia existent in every individual and there are a good number of people who have more of this trait than other people. According to the DSM-IV-TR, between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population of the United States may have PPD, while 2%–10% of outpatients receiving psychiatric care may be affected. A significant percentage of institutionalized psychiatric patients, between 10% and 30%, might have symptoms that qualify for PPD.

Paranoia is sometimes used to cope with intra-psychic conflicts. When used like that it is called a defence in classical pshychoanalytical literature. For example lets consider a person who does not like a certain sweater and wants to destroy it while it is hanging on display in the shop. For the sake of appropriateness he will inhibit that impulse and by inhibition will give rise to an intrapsychic conflict. This conflict will become more and more strong as the impulses to destroy this sweater increase because of the opposite tendency which is in harmony with not doing anything inappropriate while looking at sweaters in the shop. Now let us consider the shop manager who to help out this person looking at sweaters in the shop comes over and starts hovering around. This person who has been thinking of destroying the sweater will project on to the manager. Now he will feel persecuted by the manager and feel that the manager is expecting him to destroy the sweater and that is why he is hovering around him. This will lead to paranoia on the part of the person who is browsing the sweater line up in the sweater shop.
If people use this defence exclusively it results in a certain type of a personality called the paranoid personality disorder. People described as having a Paranoid personality employ other defences also but we are foucsing on the paranoid dynamic.

In clinical situations it is proscribed that dealings with these individuals should be follow certain rules.

-It is important to hide as little as possible from these individuals. This transparency should include note taking; details of administrative tasks concerning the individual; correspondence; and medications.

-Individuals with paranoid tendencies often don't have a well-developed sense of humor; those who must interact with people with PPD probably should not make jokes in their presence. Attempts at humor may seem like ridicule to people who feel so easily threatened.

-Asking about an individual's past can undermine the treatment of PPD people. Concentrating on the specific issues that are troubling the patient with PPD is usually the wisest course.

-The paranoid thought should not be challenged too directly.

The basic proscription is because of the following dynamic. The paranoid dynamic vascillates in between two extremes. The model of the two extremes is useful for a number of dynamics and the etiology of defences (from Level I to Level IV), Gustafson has called these extremes the near-far dilemma. On one hand is the threat to be engulfed in the closeness which is too uncomfortable and on the other hand is the distance which threatens total isolation and loss of touch from reality.

So with a health care provider there is a dance which the paranoid person engages in. If the clinician is not quick on his/her toes they can soon find themselves out of rhythm with the interview. The above general rules serve well but it is to be kept in mind that rules are made for people and not vice versa.

"The unfettered mind" which is taught in everyday mindfulness is needed in many things including dealing with this trait/defense/jinn described above.

The Secret

A lot of commotion has been occurring in the new age thought circles about the secret. This is how I understand it. I made this opinion after religiously following Dilbert for several years.

Entropy is going on. That means that all the universe is full of particles that are evolving towards a state which can be understood by the following example. If X be the state of a particle and X+1 is the state produced in it by any one of the million factors impacting that state then the future state of the particle is going to be more chaotic than X or X+1. Every new calculation made by the system for the future will grow more chaotic as the aberrant X will deviate more and more from its original position.

As mentioned in the Heisenberg principle the mere state of awareness/observation/entanglement changes the system being observed. So if a particular observation effects a system to grow more chaotic in the future then it is possible that the future state of affairs can be changed by a thought or a level of entanglement with the system.

I am sure the results that a person desires also have to be translatable in the language of life. Unfortunately life does not understand winning the lottery so no matter how much one can think or entangle or contemplate on winning the lottery it is not very liable to happen. The language of life will probably also not understand the language of money. But what it does understand is that if one wishes for happiness or if one wishes to find an answer about a question or if one wishes for fulfillment or enlightenment the whole universe conspires to bring that around. Usually materials or objects will be used to bring around the end result and the possibilities are endless how a particular wish is granted. The time of the fulfillment are also something that life chooses.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

The more precisely the POSITION is determined,
the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known.

While this is a specific statement concerning two characteristics of a particle, there are many interpretations also which apply this principle to the observer and the observed. It can also be called the observer effect. It is used to describe changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. In psychology it refers to the behavior of anyone being observed changing by the act of the observation.

Position and momentum are two characteristics of a particle that are being used to study it. If we consider the particle to be an analogy of life, then the two characteristics that we can use to study life are through the mind or through the heart (thoughts or feelings).

Neurobiologically both heart and mind are denizens of the brain and their interactions with each other are complex. At a certain level just like a particle can be described as pure momentum or pure mass (the dual theory of light) thus any perception of the mind can be accomplished using entirely reason or entirely feelings. That is a polarized level and in the interest of talking about averages we will consider the middle ground in the dyads of thought-feeling and momentum-mass. In the middle ground of the thought-feeling dyad, one cannot exist without the other. To separate the two probes of sensing is not possible. Primarily "thought" can be used to observe an object based on its height, length and depth but without the "feeling" the object being sensed will remain in a vacuum. The information about an apple will only be complete once I know that it is red and that it promises the same feeling as I had when I ate a similar one.A balance between thought and feeling needs to be struck for me to decide on the observation about that apple.

Human beings cannot be aware of the true state of affairs if they utilize feeling or reason alone. To be aware of the nearest estimate one has to use a blend of thought and feeling. Just like to determine the nature of particle ony postion or only momentum cannot be used. Both have to be used in conjunction and knowing at the same time what the possibility of error is.

We were talking about an apple which happens to be an object of mass. Hence to perceive it fully to ourselves in the two poles of thought and feeling, we might need to perceive it closer to the pole of thought. Similarly if we were attempting to perceive an aesthetic concept or art, it might be useful to perceive it closer to the pole of feeling. The truce that we negotiate in between the extent of thought and extent of feeling is intuition. Just like mathematical formulae can give the probability and extent of error in oberving particles, our souls or whatever the organ of intuition is called, determines the adequacy of our under or over reliance on thought and feeling.

So the question arises whether it is a good idea to observe life and reach a useful conclusion about it with reason or feeling. Is it good to think about life or is it good to believe in it without question. The great instrument of orientation is the thing by which we come up with an answer to this.

"Human beings are feeling animals", some say. Agreed that the primitive brain (amygdala, thatlamus, hypothalamus and pituitary) is entirely feeling. However the telencephalon or the executive brain is also well developed and both parts can override each other depending on the situation. If feeling is the only thing that is used to perceive life and make decisions about it, then we run the risk of turning into suicide bombers. If reason is the only thing that is used to perceive life and make decisions about it, then we run the risk of becoming an equally abhorrent creed of scientists.