Yoga and CyberTherapy

Yoga as a second language

The bedrocks of Cybertherapy are two:
1. Knowing that there is so much about ourselves that we do not know.
2. There is one central starting point.

We are so unaware of what we are thinking, feeling and how we behave. We can an AUTOMATIC PILOT who is virtually unquestioned. The pilot sets the course and off we go.
The bases of the interactive therapy in the site myCyberTherapy is to examine exactly what the pilot is doing and determine if this is appropriate.
Go to the site and see for yourself.

In CyberTherapy I maintain that there is a starting point for all our actions. Picture the point as the button or link we press. The button or initiator is the CRITICAL MOMENT. Something happens and we react. The Automatic Pilot takes over.
In Yoga, the string point is well marked. We ask ourself something completely unthought about. That something is where are the soles’ of our feet? We learn how to balance ourselves– where is the centre of balance?
As in CyberTherapy, we discover very quickly, that we have lost all knowledge.

In Yoga and CyberTherapy, we discover how to realise that we are missing the key ingredient and recalibrate. In Yoga we and CyberTherapy we are listening and more. We are paying attention.

In CyberTherapy we are looking closely at three parameters: how we think, feel and behave.
In Yoga, there is another set of threes. As in CyberTherapy the three parameters interplay. What are Yoga’s three parameters? What our muscles are doing, what our skeleton is doing and what movement are we making.

Both Yoga and CyberTherapy the three parameters are akin to any sentence consisting of a subject, object and verb.
In both, slowly but surely we learn the syntax and vocabulary and learn new interrelated languages with which to express ourselves.
Unlike any other language, the learning of one enhances the richness of the other.
They unite in a heightened sense of awareness. With awareness comes coping and happiness.


The Psychosis || Just what is it?


So many issues to cover.
Having finished THE BOOK OF DAVID and the site MYCYBERTHERAPY, I am now going to use the blog.
I intend expanding on all my ideas and use the Bulletin Board to incorporate your ideas.
Above all I want the platform to be free.
I do not know if we can do all this peer monitored and possibly peer/lay therapists.
I do hope we can develop ideas how to research in the different fields.
The first ongoing process is to understand the psychosis. I want to understand what is it? 
What is the difference between a patient who believes people control his thoughts and a psychiatrist who believes an injection will control his patients’ thoughts? 
What is the difference between a patient  who believes that he is God and a person who believes in God? 
Here I can make a start. 
CASE # 1 The religious’s Jew’s belief system. 
A young man from a devout religious family. Like many who had ‘seen the light’ he was dazzled by it. He now knew that he was the agent of the Messiah. His whole being was enriched by his revelation. Bright eyed he fervently explained to his  apprehensive  father. He told how he now knew things that only he could know. 
I asked of there was a difference between ‘knowing and believing?’ He stopped and said for him there was no difference any longer. I told him in that case, although I am irreligious, I believe he had negated God. He was flummoxed and asked why,
‘Because believing is something that is not part of you and you have no ownership, control or ability to manipulate. What you think and know is your property and you trademark. What you believe is not yours or from within you. You cannot change it and you cannot claim ownership. In religion the belief accepts a higher or different power who has “ownership” over the concept. If you know and not believe then you have negated God and taken his role.’
His father nodded. The boy asked his father if this was so. The father agreed. 
I added that I think that mental illness is the inability to accept uncertainty; the very uncertainty that we lesser mortals live with. Belief has a modicum of uncertainty, it is unproven, but it is accepted as part of us. 
I asked him if he thought that he was ill as I described it. He affirmed and we started the process of building a working relationship.  


The start of a long journey


We are going to challenge every basic concept about yourself, mental-health and the service.
Yes, I want to rip it all down. And here’s why:
* We must treat people and not illnesses.
* People are complex human beings with an intricate past, and they control their present and future.
* We all have beliefs that we have imbibed from our surrounding as meander through life.
* What you cannot prevent you will not cure.
* You can only treat an illness- it will relapse
* We must prevent illnesses and relapses and not ‘wait’ to treat illness as it runs wild.
* Psychiatry has sold its soul to big pharma.
* Services are not dictated by need but by fads and self-interests.
* The Therapist – Patient bedrock has been shattered- the legal profession has run amok.

I believe now is the time for change.
We can teach, help, support and have more peer group intervention. The internet is the instrument that will facilitate this revolutionary change.


eGroup Here We Go

We have made a lot of assumptions. Then we tried to KISS (keep it simple, stupid). A long time ago we experimented with this online in a similar format.
I was amazed just how rapidly the group started to work efficiently. It seems that the increased speed of inter-personal communications are matched by intra-personal ones.
I have noticed that on other Forums that the interactions are more cutting than in normal conversation. More no holds-barred than in normal face-to -face conversations. This phenomena encourages and frightens equally.
In the original group, within one session I was discarded as leader and the group became peer-led. Nevertheless, to start I am going to lead each group out of the blocs. I will be the first and follow what happens. We will see and learn together.
I will keep the right to ‘pull’ a participant who is not obeying basic ground rules or seems to be out of his or her depth.